U-Know! Forum » Top Scientists Validating the Supernatural Univers |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
Topic View: Flat | Threaded |
Vybik Jon 7720 posts |
Jan 06, 2006, 14:44
|
||
ntific Universe Intelligent Design.
|
|||
Leonard 359 posts |
Jan 06, 2006, 14:46
|
||
http://www.mchawking.com/ The music video is on newgrounds, so only works through IE, annoyingly.
|
|||
Vybik Jon 7720 posts |
Jan 06, 2006, 14:55
|
||
Very good! Cheers, Len. x
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Jan 07, 2006, 14:31
|
||
Hi Seven, Ignoring for a moment all the stuff written about 'orme' or monatomic elements being the 'food of the gods' from the Nukaki (lizards? Icke? Anyone?) I looked into the ingredients as nutrition is one thing about which I can speak from experience, it changed my life and I believe diet to be at the root of many ailments. So food supplements have The 'Evolution' food you mentioned lists these ingredients: West Australian Native Bee Pollen Barley Grass Maca (Lepidium Meyenii) Aloe Vera Taking these into account I find that all these products are sold as 'mracle' foods by affiliate programs, which makes me suspicious, although things such as bee pollen and barley grass are no doubt good diet supplements and aloe vera is reported to be an excellent natural detoxifier. This brings us to the kicker, the one that the sellers of 'Evolution' must use to justify the $67 price tag: "It is also the only natural superfood to contain large amounts of naturally occurring Monatomic Gold, Iridium and Rhodium." Now many foods are being marketed with 'monatomic gold', but the qualifier that claims exclusivity could be 'large amounts' (what are large amounts?) or the inclusion of 'Iridium and Rhodium' . The fact that 'monatomic gold' sells on David Ickes's website and is claimed to be the food of the gods (read 'lizardoids) makes me more than a little suspicious. If that alchemical/biblical/alien stuff is up your street then you might find all this very interesting/tempting. http://www.whitepowdergold.com/ "Every time I look in a mirror, I marvel at how much younger I appear , because this has literally taken most of my facial wrinkles and my gray hairs away" Doesn't this sound like Victorian quackery, where miracle cures were anyone's at the right price? If something is claimed to take away wrinkles and grey hairs, and it *isn't* on the front cover of Cosmopolitan, then someone missed a VERY big boat ;-) You could of course be paying for dehydrated seawater ;-)
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Jan 07, 2006, 14:32
|
||
"So food supplements have..." manifold uses and some very good ones. (I meant to say, sorry am rushing)
|
|||
Leonard 359 posts |
Jan 07, 2006, 15:09
|
||
I know next to nothing about diet, what I do know a bit about is some ancient cultures 'spiritual foods'. "Ancient texts have shown that the Pharoahs were fed "sho-bread" containg Monatomic Gold" Yep, other substances also considered spiritual food by different ancient cultures include; Deadly nightshade, henbane, mandrake, aluminium, sulphates of mercury, opium, dumb cane, eboga. All of these are highly toxic, quite a few in fact can and will probably kill you. So.. using the 'well it was used by the egyptians to aid enlightenment' (egyptian enlightenment btw ? er.. what ?) is a bit well, so ? This product just looks like more 'snake oil' to me.
|
|||
Leonard 359 posts |
Jan 07, 2006, 15:13
|
||
I was just searching through google scholar (which is supposed to be an index to genuine academic papers only) and found this... http://www.sandrelli.net/The%20Divine%20Cosmos.pdf It seems it is impossible to truly find a reliable source on the net these days.
|
|||
morfe 2992 posts |
Jan 07, 2006, 15:42
|
||
http://www.casewatch.org/foreign/accc/desveaux2.shtml Above is an Australian report on consumer refunds for claimed health cures soldvia the internet, it does list 'white powder gold' as one of these claims.
|
|||
Leonard 359 posts |
Jan 07, 2006, 16:22
|
||
nonsense is ? er.. okay. Its a good example of what crackpot science is actually. It takes a rational dataset, (although the sample size is way, way, way too small) such as changes in computer random number generators. It then explains the spike during 9/11 in the numbers generated as a result of the cumulative effect of human beings conciousnesses effecting the global electro magnetic field and altering the random number generators output (WTF !?!?). Which is a completely irrational explantion of the exception in the dataset and has no scientifc rationale. I pick on the RNG part of the paper specifically as its something I know a lot about. Firstly, RNGs arent random, secondly, unless you publish the entire code used to extract and collate the numbers you're wasting my, and every other person who works in the field of computer sciences, time. Thirdly, are all the machines are the same kinda machine exactly. Fourthly, how have you controlled other variables that may influence the results such as fluctuations in power supply, reliability of every component, timeslice and accuracy of the code in hitting the processor for a number at consistent intervals, temperature of processor, etc, etc. All of which can have more of an effect on results than the extremely small influence of the magnetic field. I wonder what the drain on the power grid was during 9/11 when every financial company and media company switched into overdrive as a result of the attack. The paper is full of that, rational data containing quantifiable exceptions. Then they pull explanations for the exceptions out of their ass. This is not good enough. This is not science, this is bollocks. Seriously, study the scientific method, use your own head to find alternative and rational explantions for the observations. Realise that it is possible to prove any theory by refusing to deal with additional variables that may be effecting your measurable results. Do the basics .
|
|||
Leonard 359 posts |
Jan 07, 2006, 16:26
|
||
and by proving any theory by refusing to deal with other possible dependant data, or publishing it, you're not proving anything, you're just being an idiot really. Unless you don't call it science, then thats fair enough.
|
Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
U-Know! Forum Index |