Water crystals

[roguext22]

I know it is and old news, but i would like to talk about it... and maybe to find a link between some facts... - crystal - http://www.masaru-emoto.net/english/ephoto.html Then water is affected by classic music, buddhist prays, then a bottle had a written words on it - the water becomes crystalised.. the most beautiful crystals are then the water listened to buddhist prays, or with the words on the bottle - love and gratitude, other words too... in "holy places" the water is already crystalized very beautifuly.. So a water crystal can be only then nice words showed to them, or sweet music played to the water.. a link with meditation would be possible? human is 70% from water, in the beggining - 99% many enlightened tells that you are not, or that you are not at home, or you are many, not one, or that you are not crystalised.. <- i think at least one you heared.. 1* I see that human one minute is angry - and acts like angry person, another minute he is loving and acts lovingly - and understands that it was not necessary to be angry in that situation. 2* then he is angry - his point of view is different, then he is happy - his point of view is different, thus the feeling about reality is different.. So the human is always in a change.So we are not crystalised, and we could shine like beautiful crystals, rather than staying full of nasty words, and nasty music-thinking in our heads? Any comments?

[Identity X]

This guy's been going on about this for years. His "science" is a folly and has been widely discredited by the whole scientific community, as well as observers, and his techniques and findings (which are heavily screened and doctored to the point of insult) have been asserted to be worthless. This is a crackpot theory by a twisted, unscrupulous and shamed man who calls himself a scientist. Wikipedia has a few words to say about him. This isn't even new. He's just nicked some ideas from criminals and scammers, and wrapped them up in a cynical scientific package for gullible idiots to enjoy - and buy.

[roguext22]

can you tell more examples... or you are talking empty words? i would be interested in hearing your facts that words and sounds doesnt affect water.. which later frozen and then he melts..the crystals appear , or not ( if the words and music was awful ) Ye, maybe i am the best fool man in this forum who was cheated and missinformed from a man ( scientist ) who looks good and shows hs work.. 1. tell me how he is shamed man? 2. any facts he stole those cracpot theories( as you told before ) from criminals and scammers? 3. gullible idiots are those who buy something? I bought his book - maybe i am big idiot? What to do now.. how can i become not idiot? 4. any facts that words, sounds doesnt affect water? ( i only saw how it can affect :\ )

[Identity X]

can you tell more examples... or you are talking empty words? i would be interested in hearing your facts that words and sounds doesnt affect water.. which later frozen and then he melts..the crystals appear , or not ( if the words and music was awful ) Ye, maybe i am the best fool man in this forum who was cheated and missinformed from a man ( scientist ) who looks good and shows hs work.. 1. tell me how he is shamed man? 2. any facts he stole those cracpot theories( as you told before ) from criminals and scammers? 3. gullible idiots are those who buy something? I bought his book - maybe i am big idiot? What to do now.. how can i become not idiot? 4. any facts that words, sounds doesnt affect water? ( i only saw how it can affect :\ ) Do your own fricking research. I've just told you how it is. I've read much about this before but I'm certainly not going to the effort of fishing out links right now for your purposes. The Wikipedia article I gave has a links section. Start there. You're right, have been cheated and misinformed. Whatever you paid for that book, it is a waste.

[roguext22]

ye.. i knew you are a noob you only talk like stupid.. you waste time talking rubish, but you dont have time to answer my questions.. from my research i know everything i need.. i just wrote this thread not to find someone to talk trash about how someone is fuc..stup..or mor..

[Identity X]

ye.. i knew you are a noob you only talk like stupid.. you waste time talking rubish, but you dont have time to answer my questions.. from my research i know everything i need.. i just wrote this thread not to find someone to talk trash about how someone is fuc..stup..or mor.. In that case, enjoy your thread and enjoy your book I am deeply hurt by being called a noob. I mean, of course I am, I only joined three years ago whereas you've blessed us with a whole month's worth of grammatically sublime wisdom... woe is me. What a fuc.. stu.. mor.. I am.

[roguext22]

you are not deeply hurted.. not even close.. you are not even hurted... how can you talk so much trash on man who do some research about water crystal.. and the small ( buy something lol ) it doesnt matter at all..only stupid can take it for granted - he did for business... if you would be hurt..you would not hurt others i was sad you trashed that man so much..maybe he is not so great at universities..to become a real scientist, but he did in its own way..

[Identity X]

you are not deeply hurted.. not even close.. you are not even hurted... how can you talk so much trash on man who do some research about water crystal.. and the small ( buy something lol ) it doesnt matter at all..only stupid can take it for granted - he did for business... if you would be hurt..you would not hurt others i was sad you trashed that man so much..maybe he is not so great at universities..to become a real scientist, but he did in its own way.. Ok, would you: Learn to accept a throroughly accepted, unbiased and referenced argument, rather than dismiss it as "trash" because it is at odds with your gut instinct. Learn to question "evidence". How he obtained it, selected it, displayed it, demonstrated it. Learn to identify sarcasm. Learn English. I have nothing against you, though you try to offend me. I'm just trying to tell you that you've been fleeced. You can get by by not questioning theories, but you won't learn by it. Read the Wikipedia article, read the references, they will all tell you the same story, objectively, truthfully and unbiased.

[Goldney]

3. gullible idiots are those who buy something? I bought his book - maybe i am big idiot? If you believe that water crystals can be affected by mood, religion, music etc. then you are gullible, unfortunately. Words: Words on a bottle? That affect the way water crystallises?! What if the word meant something entirely different in another language? What meaning would the word take? But honestly, water is not affected by something that is written on the receptecle it is in. Religion: Some people would regard other people's place of religion evil. How could the water form "beautiful" crystals in an evil place? The opinion of a good place is entirely subjective, a concept that water cannot physically understand. Seeing as it's, you know, water. Classical music: I admit that they're may be some evidence that music would affect the way that crystals are formed, due to the vibrations in the air that are known as sound. However, classical music would have no more influence than death metal or J-pop. Take a step back and think about what you're talking about. Water is just two atoms of hydrogen joined to an atom of oxygen by covalent bonds in a simple molecular structure. There is nothing special about it other than the fact it can exist in all 3 atomic states (solid, liquid, gas) in a relatively enclosed environment. It's a simple chemical with no magical or mystical properties.

[Tornado Joe]

Ok, you two - back to your corners. Agree to disagree. Rogue, this guy's study has been featured in the movie "What the Bleep Do We Know" - and if you're really into this kind of thing, I'd recommend their site www.bleepingherald.com. This study is tied in with the area of quantum physics and other philosophical views. Read up on it and make up your own mind. IdentityX - really, Wikipedia? LOL, it's ok to present an argument for debate, but Wiki is NOT gonna get you taken seriously. Just sayin. Water is just two atoms of hydrogen joined to an atom of oxygen by covalent bonds in a simple molecular structure. There is nothing special about it other than the fact it can exist in all 3 atomic states (solid, liquid, gas) in a relatively enclosed environment. It's a simple chemical with no magical or mystical properties. "Simple molecular structure"? And what makes up those molucules? What keeps them together? Why do they mix sometimes, and other times no? There's more to this than 7th grade science.

[roguext22]

well its sad that no one has enough brain and is friendly to talk about it... i know words affects water...words can affect you, animal, plants..why not water.. it would be narrow thinking that words doesnt affect water... I read that book.. i watched in internet many videos how they do those photos of water... i just checked this forum to see if anyone was interested in it also... anyways..if anyone would like to talk about water, words, music.. how it affects us.. and meditation.. pm me.. P.S. thanks Tornado Joe for support

[Identity X]

well its sad that no one has enough brain and is friendly to talk about it... i know words affects water...words can affect you, animal, plants..why not water.. it would be narrow thinking that words doesnt affect water... I read that book.. i watched in internet many videos how they do those photos of water... i just checked this forum to see if anyone was interested in it also... Roguext22: You don't get it, do you? It's not that I don't have "enough brain", it's because I have more than enough brain to realise that it's junk science. I've just been trying to tell you that you might want to take a moment to reconsider your view on this very specific area of science that really should not exist. I've told you the facts, and pointed you towards some links in the Wikipedia article. In return, you have been crude, offensive, childish and rude. It is a shame that there are those such as yourself who would rather believe something that has no grounding than accept a reasonable, thouroughly tested theory just because you have a grudge against mainstream science, or that you plain just don't like being told you are wrong. Well, I'll tell you now: you are wrong. I feel great regret that you hold on so stubbornly to this idiocy. Not that I know you, but I would hope to think any educated person could reach a more enlightened conclusion. Tornado Joe: I have never once made reference to Wikipedia with the explicit means to prove a point or provide research. Just re-read my posts, will you. I mentioned it in the first article as a side note to another opinion, when I was not so seriously compelled to rid Roguext of his/her delusion. I then said the refererences would be a goodd place to start reading up on it, but not the article itself. I was careful to avoid referencing it directly because I was wary of falling into the same rather ineffectual trap as you tried to prise me into. Please, double-check your words before you post them and go LOL!ing at non-existant faults. I usually hold you in high esteem so I guess this is a one-off error, eh? I admire your tenacity to hold a neutral view on this one but some arguments are so strongly biased towards one side that sitting onthe fence is akin to hanging on for dear life.

[Tornado Joe]

I have never once made reference to Wikipedia with the explicit means to prove a point or provide research. Just re-read my posts, will you. Ok, lemme break it down as to what I read... his is a crackpot theory by a twisted, unscrupulous and shamed man who calls himself a scientist. Wikipedia has a few words to say about him. How did I misread that? Do your own fricking research. I've just told you how it is. This was your very next post. "I've just told you how it is", I took as "read that link". If I there was something else I was supposed to take from your comments, then sorry, I guess I didn't read the lines between the lines further between the lines. My bad. It's just that it was the only "reference" you provided to your point of view. Yes, you DID tell rogue to "do your own research" - but, I don't see anything wrong with him asking for some documentation that supports your views. After all he DID pretty much reveal HIS reason for supporting the water crystals in his opening post. You can tell him he's full of shit, but without attempting to provide some valid references as to why, you're pretty much just saying "Cuz I said so." I admire your tenacity to hold a neutral view on this one but some arguments are so strongly biased towards one side that sitting onthe fence is akin to hanging on for dear life. As for me sitting on the fence or being neutral, I have my own views on this - none of which are a "definite" so I choose not to push them on anyone. I'm the type of person that has to experience certain things to be convinced. However, I see these types of 'trends' in nature already, just never with water crystals (I don't have the equiptment for that type of thing). But just look at a leaf, a bee's hive, the patterns on a snake or lizard, the Golden Ratio, fractals --- nature is very capable of such symetry and pattern. Something is behind it.

[Identity X]

TornadoJoe, nothing you have posted above supports your idea that I attempted to use Wikipedia as a source. I only used it to provide context in my very first post, in which I wasn't even sure roguext22 was being serious. I never stated it was a reference. This was an assumption you have falsely made. And I did provide him with documentation to support my views - the references of the article, because that's where I initially started my research a few years ago (but not the article itself). So I'm not just saying "cuz I said so", I'm saying "because the scientific community says so". Please, it is one thing not apologising for false accusations and another scraping the barrel and trying to justify it with blatant misreadings and lack of context. And, as for "symmetry and pattern", that is not even the issue. Although I have issues with the Golden Ratio and its apparent faultless ubiquity (I do not wish to further my opinions on this, because you'd most likely want me to source this, well, I have a compiler to write), nature is indeed full of beauty, mystery and pattern. Water does produce brilliant and majestic crystals. The issue is that exposing them to "nice" things somehow make them more beautiful, not that they may be beautiful in the first place. As for "Something being behind it", that is neither here nor there. That's an R&S question.

[roguext22]

identity x go away from this thread.. then i ask about facts about: 1* "This is a crackpot theory by a twisted, unscrupulous and shamed man who calls himself a scientist." - as you wrote 2* "He's just nicked some ideas from criminals and scammers" - yours writting too dont google me.. you find much time here to write some arguing about smth.. but you dont find a time to post facts for 1* 2* and that water is not affected by words, sound, words on paper... you just google me.. so go away.. find someone else to argue and trash someone else really, im not even interested in yours arguing about how you will respond to my, or tornado joys messages..and some other "fog y" words... P.S. drop to think that you are better at science than that scientist - whatever method he is using...and pay some respect who works on something...

[Identity X]

identity x go away from this thread.. then i ask about facts about: 1* "This is a crackpot theory by a twisted, unscrupulous and shamed man who calls himself a scientist." - as you wrote 2* "He's just nicked some ideas from criminals and scammers" - yours writting too dont google me.. you find much time here to write some arguing about smth.. but you dont find a time to post facts for 1* 2* and that water is not affected by words, sound, words on paper... you just google me.. so go away.. find someone else to argue and trash someone else really, im not even interested in yours arguing about how you will respond to my, or tornado joys messages..and some other "fog y" words... P.S. drop to think that you are better at science than that scientist - whatever method he is using...and pay some respect who works on something... You say I am lazy by not referencing my views. Fair enough, but this is not about me, this is about you taking active steps to question what you read instead of accepting it straight away. I'm trying to help you, I've nothing to prove to myself. I will not "go away", I'm just as stubborn as you. I have as much right to be here then anyone else. I have a conflicting view and you want to kick me out? This is a forum. Conflicting views should and do exist. Also, instead of me going to the effort of referencing my posts, perhaps you should go to the effort of producing a post that is legible in the first place... instead of insulting both myself and the English language.

[Goldney]

"Simple molecular structure"? And what makes up those molucules? Protons, neutrons and electrons, which in turn are made up of even smaller particles called quarks and gluons and a load of other things. What keeps them together? Why do they mix sometimes, and other times no? There's more to this than 7th grade science. Electrons orbiting in energy shells keep it together. Basically hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms have different numbers of electrons whizzing around the outside of the nucleus (they're not actually whizzing because they're waves of energy but that's another point entirely) and the differing numbers of electrons attract each other because they want to have eight electrons in their outer shell in order to make it complete. When they have eight they don't react with anything any more. Different elements have different numbers of electrons in the outer shell which effects their reactivity greatly. For example, Sodium only has one electron in the outer shell, and Chlorine has 7. These react together to form an ionic bond where the chlorine takes the 1 extra sodium electron so that both elements have 8 in their outer shell. This new compound is called sodium chloride or, more commonly known as... salt. Going back to the original questions: so these complete water molecules don't want to react any more because they've got full outer shells, so why do they still attract each other? It's because between each molecule are weak Van der Waal forces (otherwise named intermolecular forces). These attract the molecules together but still allow them to move over each other (in a liquid or gas). Because they are easily broken it allows water to turn into a gas at very low temperatures. So it is in fact seventh grade science. ----------------------------------------------- Oh and by the way: I am sideing whole-heartedly with Identity X. I wouldn't think myself as close-minded to the impossible, but it is very important to question what you see. May I direct you to this video: Chris Angel. This person has faked the video with clever film shots etc. My point is that you could easily believe something like that if you didn't question the source and reasons behind it being made. If this person could really fly, would they be allowed to lead a normal life, wouldn't they be abducted by the government? What motives does he have to produce this video, he's certainly not doing it for free, is he? These kind of questions are applicable to the "scientist" you are talking about. I suggest you question him. ------------------------------------------------- I have tried hard to present this in an unbiased manner and I believe it is prudent that you should too roguext22.

[Identity X]

Protons, neutrons and electrons, which in turn are made up of even smaller particles called quarks and gluons and hadrons and a load of other things. Lol. Aside from the physics, you are right, thank you.

[Tornado Joe]

Electrons orbiting in energy shells keep it together. Basically hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms have different numbers of electrons whizzing around the outside of the nucleus (they're not actually whizzing because they're waves of energy but that's another point entirely) and the differing numbers of electrons attract each other because they want to have eight electrons in their outer shell in order to make it complete. When they have eight they don't react with anything any more. Different elements have different numbers of electrons in the outer shell which effects their reactivity greatly. For example, Sodium only has one electron in the outer shell, and Chlorine has 7. These react together to form an ionic bond where the chlorine takes the 1 extra sodium electron so that both elements have 8 in their outer shell. This new compound is called sodium chloride or, more commonly known as... salt. Going back to the original questions: so these complete water molecules don't want to react any more because they've got full outer shells, so why do they still attract each other? It's because between each molecule are weak Van der Waal forces (otherwise named intermolecular forces). These attract the molecules together but still allow them to move over each other (in a liquid or gas). Because they are easily broken it allows water to turn into a gas at very low temperatures. So it is in fact seventh grade science. <sigh> well, my question was actually rhetorical - but thanks for for the 'lesson'. IX, Please, it is one thing not apologising for false accusations and another scraping the barrel and trying to justify it with blatant misreadings and lack of context. If I there was something else I was supposed to take from your comments, then sorry, I guess I didn't read the lines between the lines further between the lines. My bad.It's just that it was the only "reference" you provided to your point of view. I may be guilty of a "misreading" -- you clearly don't read at all. I'm not here to get involved in a tit-for-tat game which goes off topic, so if you're gonna hold a grudge, use a bag- cuz you'll be carrying it for a long time.

[Identity X]

I read you post, I did not see an apology in there. I mean, a sincere one. You think I'd hold a grudge online? On this forum? In this post? Heh. I have nothing against you - or roguext23 for that matter. I thought you were a bit silly in trying to accuse me of something I never did, but, hey, I just thought I'd get you to reconsider your initial post, that is all. I was just trying to help roguext23 and defend myself from a cheap swipe, but, eh. I suppose any post I make now is "childish" and an extension of a grudge you proposed but really does not exist? Eh.

[Tornado Joe]

I suppose any post I make now is "childish" and an extension of a grudge you proposed but really does not exist? Nope, you can say what you want. It's just that this whole thing about me "accusing you" of something really irritates me. Because I see a lot of that in today's world - bullshit "I'm a victim, now apologize" crap where it doesn't belong. I simply don't stand for that crap. No one accused you of anything. If that's how you feel, well that's on you. I do hope you're not trying to imply that I'm defending rogue with your "I was just trying to help roguext23 and defend myself from a cheap swipe, but, eh." - because you two are on your own with your debate. I'm pretty sure I made that clear. In fact, looking back all my posts since have been in regards to this whole (off-topic) banter about who said what and who needs an apology. Seriously, I (like you), have nothing against anyone either. I can't even recall ever having an issue with a member since I've been on DV. Also, like you, I don't see the point in getting so upset about a post on an online forum. But I draw a line at some point, and trying to paint me as the "accuser" by demanding an apology (clever but I see through it) for something that's so ambiguous is where the line lays. Apology not sincere? You're right, guess it wasn't. Sorry about that. Shit! I just said sorry! Let's just move on - sheesh.

[roguext22]

cmon tornado joe.. they are not interested in this topic... they only found where they can "argue" and "discuss" off topic..they just like to play the game - who is right, and who is wrong...

[BillyBob]

Guys, Shut up Heres some links that aren't wikipedia: http://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html#EMOTO http://is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/ ________________ This was interesting (first link): As quoted in an interview with Jon Woodhouse published in the Maui News, Emoto stated, “I did not start out with any modern scientific background. I did not even know the limit of science to stop me from giving this research a chance.” Not having been educated in the scientific community, Emoto has been happy to do his “research” without accurately employing the scientific method. While he does employ the spirit of the scientific method in his research design, he makes critical mistakes in its rigor. For example, Emoto’s research does employ observation of a physical phenomenon, formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon, and testing and revising the hypothesis, but he makes the critical mistake of failing to minimize the influence of the experimenter’s bias on the outcome of the research. Dr. Emoto’s procedure for photographing crystals has no controlled means of ensuring that experimenter’s bias is prevented or minimized. For example, his methodology does not ensure that the obtained results are not selected consciously or subconsciously by the photographer. In fact, in theMaui News interview, Dr. Emoto specifically stated, “I do not require any blind tests on any samples,” but rather he believes that “the researcher’s aesthetic sense and character is the most important aspect when taking crystal photographs.” Emoto’s belief that ice crystal formation is sensitive to human thought lead him to select technicians who would not affect crystal formation with negative thoughts over technicians who had formal research experience. While it is possible that he did, in fact, discover that water has an observable sensitivity to external stimuli such as prayer and words, Dr. Emoto’s experimental design and clinical procedures do not prove the claim. A double blind procedure in which a photographer would not know what water sample he or she was photographing would make the claim considerably more credible. Emoto’s procedure, while simple and direct, does not eliminate numerous possible sources of error. Ice crystal structural formation is dependent on numerous environmental factors, the most important of which are temperature and humidity. While Emoto minimized some possible sources of error by conducting his studies in the same room with the same sample sizes, the same freezer and same microscope each time, other possible sources of error were not addressed. For example the Petri dishes were not sealed to prevent contamination or disturbance by the operator or environment; A simple thing such as the photographer’s breath while using the microscope could affect the warming rate of the frozen sample and temperature of crystal formation, thus affecting the structure of the resultant crystal. As Dr. Emoto has not published the entirety of his photographs, it is unknown if he ruled out or ignored crystals that did not support his hypothesis. HMW and the JACM article only contain selected photos that support his claims, and we are left to wonder what the rest of the pictures look like. His procedures state that in any given test he will photograph 100 petri dish samples, yet only one picture per test is provided to the public. Emoto also fails to publish any findings that contradict his claim (or that were at least inconclusive). No errors are currently published in the JACMHMWbook that my research has been able to uncover. article, his websites, or his Upon researching this, my logical mind is telling me that this guy has a whole lot to gain by choosing the best samples out of that 100 or so. To me, he seems biased and like a complete crackpot. You draw your own conclusions. PS. Why is this in the research forum?

[Eminence~]

Aww, this makes me sad. After seeing "What the Bleep Do We Know?", I really wanted to believe this water crystal thing. But I've just read BillyBob's links, and I must say the guy who came up with this sounds like a gigantic crackpot.

[roguext22]

Aww, this makes me sad. After seeing "What the Bleep Do We Know?", I really wanted to believe this water crystal thing. But I've just read BillyBob's links, and I must say the guy who came up with this sounds like a gigantic crackpot. go believe in what you want.. also your avatar if you want to not to believe, but to know how it is in real...try yourself to see..lol