Originally posted by cruzion
The plants probably grew better within the enclosed space of the greenhouse because the 'death metal' music was the most sonically active; The speakers were pushing the most air. As the speaker vibrates, it's pushing air back and forth. More than likely it was tiny, constant air movement was stimulating the plants. Like trees and plants in harsher environs tend to be more sturdier naturally. It's just the plants reaction to it's environment. Plants don't have ears. Also, vibration can be carried through other mediums besides air. Perhaps there was bass vibration being carried through the table to the pots? They should have done more tests with amplitude, and perhaps switched the music half through the test to see if the change would relate within the fauna growth. Mythbusters is entertaining, but it's hardly real science.
The Rife stuff is a myth perpetuated by people selling useless equipment to the gullible and desperate. I could have a program that flashed pics of Mickey Mouse at you, and if I told you it cured flu or cancer, I'm sure, just by placebo, it would cure someone eventually. The Rife stuff may work as a tool for creating belief, but I highly doubt the claims made by most sellers. You will also find most positive info about the Rife stuff is expounded on websites that also sell the (usually exspensive) equipment.
Besides that, how compotent are your computer or home stereo speakers at transmitting precise frequencies? Also, how well does muscle, skin, veins etc. transfer vibration? I would have thought they would have a huge dampening effect. Do they do anything other than dampen, like drop the hertz interval? You would think that people studying the effects of vibration on the body would have data on all this stuff. The body is composed of different materials with different masses and different water, mineral and metal content. The vibration is just not going to pass through without being hindered in some way.
The same goes for flashing lights at frequency. How is that affecting a bacterium that lives deep inside a body? Magic?
errr more sturdier.
But I get basically what you are saying. I just thought of something today..Due to the nature of how the ground is saturated, wouldn't sound pass more easily through wet saturated ground than the air itself? At least into the deeper areas where a plant or tree might reach (above the more solid strata beneath it).
The reason there is no solid data on sound effects on the human body is because there really hasn't been any clinical tests to prove that it is anything other than pseudoscience. It doesn't mean that it isn't real, it just means that mainstream science is in denial until they are proven wrong (which then means people have to conduct their own studies and research, which then gets discredited because they aren't "scientists"). It's a lovely world we live in. The same pretty much goes for ghosts and the paranormal. It's real, but mainstream science is too ignorant to look at the evidence objectively and not be biased about it as being pseudoscience. Then, the researchers who actually do the work and lay down the blood, sweat, and tears to do the real research get scoffed and criticized by the same scientific community that doesn't really care whether or not something is relevant, but really just cares about who at what university is going to get the next lump of money for the next big research project.
Science is a small word to describe "what scientists think they know" about the natural world. It is, in some cases, nothing more than an educated guess based on what we know currently. Our understanding about the natural world is constantly changing and we are always learning new astonishing things. The problem is that scientists get one thing into their head and their bias takes over. They then focus on what they can feasibly get research grants and money for (anything other than pseudoscientific endeavours). It's a loop of ignorance that has gone on for decades/centuries and will continue until people decide to challenge the status quo. It almost seems as if science is no longer a search for truth at all, but rather a bunch of people fighting over money who are only worried about peer recognition and self-advancement. It's a money pit for people wanting a more distinguished resume. I'm sure lots of scientists would be interested in researching the paranormal if the pay was right. But then the bias nature of science comes into play, where scientists scoff and criticise their peers for even being interested in such silly topics (because they are, indeed, challenging the status quo in mainstream science). Isn't that where the big discoveries are made?
The only reason you see people on TV looking for "ghosts" is not only for the entertainment value for the network airing the show, but also because these are driven, focused people who are good at what they do. It is also because there is a need for that kind of research and noone else is doing it. The problem is then that these people are not actually scientists even though some of these groups that investigate the paranormal do apply a scientific approach. But what exactly is science? Who exactly is a scientist? Does the title only apply to those getting grants to conduct formal studies? Or does it also apply to those conducting unformal studies? I think it depends on the individuals conducting the research. But that doesn't mean that the mainstream scientific community will not distance themselves as much as possible from the research, it's validity, it's evidence, and it's implications. That is really what is going on right now and it is because of simple human ignorance at the most fundamental level.
The same goes for this topic. Sorry for the long winded response..
-ChriS
[edit on 15-3-2008 by BlasteR]
[edit on 15-3-2008 by BlasteR]
