Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How to Bust Chemtrails from the Ground, Very Simple

page: 4
96
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
The personal comments are non-productive. Instead, please advance the topic.




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
The actual paper is quite an entertaining exercise in "spot the problems with this study"


Since you only quoted the paper and didn't post any actual problems with it, does that mean you're still pouring over it to find something to justify the conclusions you've already reached?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
The actual paper is quite an entertaining exercise in "spot the problems with this study"


Since you only quoted the paper and didn't post any actual problems with it, does that mean you're still pouring over it to find something to justify the conclusions you've already reached?


They used four different bottles of water.

Two of the bottles were handled differently from the other two.

Hence different results quite probably.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297
Have you read the actual report of this "test?"

4 bottles of Fiji water, 2 prayed over, sent to a team member who then selcted "samples" for photography and "aesthetic" analysis over the internet.

The selector, by coincidence, no doubt, chose 50% MORE of the prayed-over "samples" to submit for "aesthetic" evaluation.


The point was to observe changes in the molecular structure of the water after different thoughts/feelings were projected to the water. In that regard every single one of the samples was representative of this principle.

See any pattern?




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
They used four different bottles of water.

Two of the bottles were handled differently from the other two.

Hence different results quite probably.


Yes, two bottles were set aside as controls.


So you're saying they shouldn't have used a control? What is your point?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

See any pattern?

I do see a pattern, more junk science. Any scientist knows that there is not a photo of a molecule there, no one has a photograph of a water molecule!

Those are pretty standard snowflake patterns (for the macro or microscopic scale), you get the same results without the bunk assertions.

ETA: I made a graphic to demonstrate, none of these ice crystals were prayed over or influenced in any way.

edit on 6/1/11 by adeclerk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
I do see a pattern, more junk science. Any scientist knows that there is not a photo of a molecule there, no one has a photograph of a water molecule!


Molecules. I said molecular structure, as in the structure created by the arrangement of the molecules.

I guess you don't see any different at all between any of those photos, either, do you?


Those are pretty standard snowflake patterns (for the macro or microscopic scale), you get the same results without the bunk assertions.


And again.... totally ignoring any pattern in the appearance of the water itself.



You're really showing me how open you are to new science, really. You going to debunk Dr. Tiller by selectively ignoring him too? Ahh wait you're already doing that.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
You're really showing me how open you are to new science, really. You going to debunk Dr. Tiller by selectively ignoring him too?

It is really telling how scientifically minded you are when you don't understand that we cannot photograph a water molecule, those are ice crystals, not single molecules!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

For starters, the "control" sample was not handled in the same manner as the test sample.


The treatment bottles were placed inside a double-steelwalled, electromagnetically shielded room...

The control bottles were placed in separate cardboard boxes and stored on a desk in a quiet location on another floor of the building that housed the shielded room.

download.journals.elsevierhealth.com...

That doesn't quite meet the definition of a control sample.

When an experiment is conducted for the purpose of determining the effect of a single variable of interest on a particular system, a scientific control is used to minimize the unintended influence of other variables on the same system. Such extraneous variables include researcher bias, environmental changes, and biological variation. Scientific controls ensure that data are valid, and are a vital part of the scientific method.

scientific-control.co.tv...

There was no control sample. Based on that alone, the experiment was not valid.
edit on 6/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by adeclerk
It is really telling how scientifically minded you are when you don't understand that we cannot photograph a water molecule, those are ice crystals, not single molecules!


....

I didn't say they were single molecules.

Can you please read my posts for a change?



Molecules. I said molecular structure, as in the structure created by the arrangement of the molecules.



Congratulations, you have completely diverted this topic with erroneous rhetoric.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
For starters, the "control" sample was not handled in the same manner as the test sample.


If they were handled in the same way as the bottles subjected to the experiment, then they wouldn't be controls.


There was no control sample.


Your link is irrelevant to this experiment due to its nature. If the bottles were all kept in close proximity to each other, the purpose of the control would be negated.

The man who conducted this experiment is a Ph.D. Do you honestly believe he doesn't know how to set up a control?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

They didn't have to be kept close to each other but they did have to be kept under the same environmental conditions.

They weren't. A cardboard box in a desk is not the same as a double steel, electromagnetically shielded room.

The idea is to isolate variables, the praying. The experiment introduced variables which could influence the outcome. The experiment is not valid.
edit on 6/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Uncinus
They used four different bottles of water.

Two of the bottles were handled differently from the other two.

Hence different results quite probably.


Yes, two bottles were set aside as controls.


So you're saying they shouldn't have used a control? What is your point?


yes, they should have used a control. The control should have been OF THE SAME WATER. As it was they used two different bottles.

And the number of crystals is clearly not enough to draw any kind of meaningful conclusion. The results are well within the bounds of randomness. In any set of 16 random numbers, there is a very high probability that the average vary greatly from the average of 10000 random numbers. they seem to totally ignore this, focussing instead on the consistency of the aesthetic judgements.

If the results were just random, you'd get something like this some of the time:




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 



The man who conducted this experiment is a Ph.D. Do you honestly believe he doesn't know how to set up a control?

Appeal to Authority.

If I were to base my opinion on this experiment alone, I would have to say no he doesn't.

The scientific method is very simple, this man's Ph.D does not mean he understands the scientific method anymore than a high school biology student. He either uses it or he doesn't, and in this case he didn't. This much you can not refute.
edit on 1-6-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
They didn't have to be kept close to each other but they did have to be kept under the same environmental conditions.

They weren't. A cardboard box in a desk is not the same as a double steel, electromagnetically shielded room.


If you think the EM shielding had something to do with the geometric patterns the water assumed, then you must have a hypothesis of your own about that, huh?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

No. I don't.
It's the experimenters job to eliminate variables. The water (and not the same water, as pointed out) was subjected to different environments during the experiment. Different environments means introduced variables. It was a bad experiment.

edit on 6/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Uncinus
yes, they should have used a control. The control should have been OF THE SAME WATER. As it was they used two different bottles.


And they took multiple samples from each bottle. The multiple samples from the same bottles, were from the same bottles. What's your excuse for that?


And the number of crystals is clearly not enough to draw any kind of meaningful conclusion. The results are well within the bounds of randomness. In any set of 16 random numbers, there is a very high probability that the average vary greatly from the average of 10000 random numbers.


Of course, you could always keep moving the goal posts.

Have you compared the double-blind replicated study yet?
edit on 1-6-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
It's the experimenters job to eliminate variables. The water (and not the same water, as pointed out) was subjected to different environments during the experiment.


You are ignoring the fact that multiple water samples did in fact come from the same bottle. That is why there were only 2 bottles of water prayed over, and 24 samples taken.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

The samples weren't prayed over. The bottles were. The bottles did not contain the same water.
edit on 6/1/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I said molecular structure, as in the structure created by the arrangement of the molecules.



That is not what molecular structure is.

molecular structure is the structure of atoms within a molecule - see www.accessscience.com...

The structure of molecules within a crystal is the crystal structure.

Glad to have cleared that up for you





new topics

top topics



 
96
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join