It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

our DNA reacts to our bodies emotions even when miles away

page: 12
107
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by angellicview

Originally posted by mcdgray129
reply to post by angellicview
 


That is wonderful what you do, and thank you so much for showing how real this is


Thank you. And guys, sometimes it's just better to ignore people like Darth. The thing is that we already know certain things about the OP's video to be true. Maybe we don't have the expertise to explain the physics behind it. I have been studying quantum mechanics for about three years now and I can't say that I know the exact relation between the two. I can't put it into words. But I know it's there.

If science hasn't figured it out yet (which I think they pretty much have figured it out) then they will.

Something like energy healing is not a part of Darth's life yet. But maybe someday it will be. Maybe he will come into my hospital with his wife who births a baby that comes out sick. Maybe he'll pray or meditate. He'll definitely have no choice but to depend upon the nurse who is caring for his sick baby to do the right things. Maybe his baby will get better fast - within hours! He will probably never know that that nurse that was taking care of his baby transferred amazing loving and healing energies to him/her. But maybe he'll think twice if that happened.

Until it becomes part of your life, it's hard to understand or incorporate.

And, on another note, I seriously think there are people out there who get paid to come to places like here and debunk things just like this.


Its so true people like him try tomake us doubt ourself and when you do that you lose the power, we all have it its about believing, you have seen it first hand and so have i so i know its real, and thank you for your kind reply
.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Foxy1
reply to post by mcdgray129
 

did you log in and goto my tools then profile?


Yeah it just wont work?, maybe i need 20 posts or something first like before you can post a new topic??



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by mcdgray129
 

perhaps, I myself didnt load my avatar until I was a year old on this site.With enough prodding and poking you will eventually get it



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


I love how throughout this entire thread you have pointed out the lack of any evidence to support the claims in the Video.
But have even stopped and thought that maybe JUST maybe that there is a reason for this lack of evidence on this subject, Perhaps it is because it is something we have not thought about or studied enough to find the EVIDENCE you so desire!
So taking that into account How is it you can say that this is wrong due to lack of evidence to Support it?
throughout Man's history every great Idea, invention, thought or belief started with a maybe or what if.

To assume that this is wrong because it lacks evidence to support it is to Assume all the things we now to be correct!
Im just saying maybe open your mind a little bit and you might be surprised!



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Foxy1
 


I think that might be it
, but if so they should say so lol. Anyway someday i will find it out
i will have my pic on this site lol



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by CitizenAlpha
reply to post by tauristercus
 


I love how throughout this entire thread you have pointed out the lack of any evidence to support the claims in the Video.
But have even stopped and thought that maybe JUST maybe that there is a reason for this lack of evidence on this subject, Perhaps it is because it is something we have not thought about or studied enough to find the EVIDENCE you so desire!
So taking that into account How is it you can say that this is wrong due to lack of evidence to Support it?
throughout Man's history every great Idea, invention, thought or belief started with a maybe or what if.

To assume that this is wrong because it lacks evidence to support it is to Assume all the things we now to be correct!
Im just saying maybe open your mind a little bit and you might be surprised!


you speak true words my friend
so very true, i know in my own heart and soul this will be proving to be real, cos i can feel it all around me so i know its there. the energy i mean



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by tauristercus
 


www.youtube.com...

Now do you believe it?

Oh yeah, the guy in that video is credible. en.wikipedia.org...

"Kaku graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University in 1968 and was first in his physics class." - Wiki

Then look up summa cum laude.

If you still don't believe it is possible, you do not understand why it could be. Therefore, your critiques are invalid.

edit on 12-1-2012 by Kappy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kappy
reply to post by tauristercus
 


www.youtube.com...

Now do you believe it?



Gave you a star mate
good job
and its 7:30am here and im still not asleep
is my sleep path ever gonna fix itself lol



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Foxy1
 


Super interesting, I wonder if any of this has to do with the blue cord people see coming out of them when they are astral traveling? Does this energy field have to do with chakras maybe? It'd be fascinating to see if this is all inter-correlated!



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
Amazing stuff. Pretty much speechless, there is so much new material to read.

Perhaps we will make it to a day when paranormal is just plain normal.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   
An interesting dynamic has developed in this topic. People asking for detailed and precise methodology for this experiment (one of the hallmarks of reproducible, credible science) are receiving examples from other theories and different experimental data from different experiments, and being asked to extrapolate from those that this alleged DNA experiment must therefore be valid and scientifically credible. When skeptics then point out that this is not sufficient, people essentially tell them to "just believe." When they explain why they can't because that isn't sufficient either, they are called everything from close-minded to aggressive to rigid. In some cases they are simply being dismissed outright because of their repeated calls for specific data on the experiment and how it was supposedly conducted.

Now, if anyone reads any post I've ever made on this site, I go out of my way consistently to be sensitive and respectful towards people's spiritual beliefs and opinions. My signature contains a topic dedicated to skeptics and believers learning from one another and respecting one another's positions. Furthermore, I have my own spiritual beliefs not necessarily supported by science, however I am always careful to delineate between my beliefs and facts, as on the factual side I choose to practice an open-minded skepticism. So I feel I have earned the right through these actions on a consistent basis for years now to not be labeled any of those things (closed-minded, aggressive, rigid, etc.)

So with that said, I have to respectfully express my opinion that people are quite frankly being very dismissive of some of the skeptics in this topic. The theoretical and experimentally verifiable existence of quantum entanglement, while well documented, and while potentially a part of whatever might facilitate the phenomenon being discussed in this topic, is not proof that this specific phenomenon exists. Nor does it take the place of specific methodology for this alleged experiment. We can discuss all sorts of other experiments that might tangentially (or even not so tangentially) be suggestive of these claims being true potentially, but that does nothing to support or corroborate these specific claims.

While a study does not have to be published in an established journal to make it credible or true necessarily, what it does have to do - regardless of where or how it is published - in order to be credible and scientifically valid is to provide specific, reproducible methodology. This video and the articles associated with it don't do that. They don't say, specifically, how they did what they did, how their measurements were taken, what instruments and techniques were used, what the experimental environment was like, how that environment was controlled, what sort of a controls they used to differentiate their results from coincidence or random occurrence, etc. They used very general, very broadly interpretable, and not specifically reproducible, language in describing their experiment. (In contrast to the other DNA experiment posted in the topic in an attempt to support this experiment. Though, as I said, that experiment is not sufficient to corroborate this experiment, because there is no published methodology on this experiment, and the conclusions of the other, more credibly documented experiment do not make claims as fantastic or of the magnitude that this one claims to.)

I'm not saying that this is impossible. (I don't know.) But I can say that until those specifics are published - whether it it’s in a peer reviewable journal or not, and whether it's by them or someone with more scientific and/or linguistic rigor and experience than them helping them to put forward those specifics - I can't accept this at face value as being factual. (That isn’t the same as asserting for a fact that it’s impossible, mind you, because I’m not qualified to make that assertion.)

Demanding evidence and details on how to reproduce an experiment making such fantastic claims is not rigidity or closed-mindedness. That is skepticism and open-mindedness.

Asking people to "just believe" is everyone's prerogative and as I said, I respect and even admire everyone's personal spiritual beliefs (as I said, I have my own.) But this is the Science and Technology forum, and without specific methodology this is not scientifically credible at this point. That does not mean that it's impossible or untrue, and does not constitute a rejection or an assertion that this is impossible or verifiably untrue, because I can't prove a negative. But demanding specifics is in no way unreasonable, and those who do are not automatically being closed-minded or somehow unenlightened.

My two cents (again.) Peace.
edit on 1/12/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Typo



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kappy
reply to post by tauristercus
 


www.youtube.com...

Now do you believe it?

Oh yeah, the guy in that video is credible. en.wikipedia.org...

"Kaku graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University in 1968 and was first in his physics class." - Wiki

Then look up summa cum laude.

If you still don't believe it is possible, you do not understand why it could be. Therefore, your critiques are invalid.

edit on 12-1-2012 by Kappy because: (no reason given)


Holy crap ... I promised myself that I would NOT respond any more in this thread as not one of you who are so super dooper keen on this "amazing discovery" are able to come up with ANY, NONE, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA corroborating evidence to show that this "effect" actually is real.
Look back through EVERY post and NOWHERE do you find any verifiable evidence that one chunk of dna can "communicate" with another chunk of identical dna.

Now, here comes (new) member Kappy ever so pleased with him/her self thinking that finally here's indisputable proof that such communication MUST occur ... why ? because summa cum laude (yes, Kappy, I do know what that means, thank you very much) Kaku has just posted a Youtube vid talking about that mysterious communication that has been "proved" by many scientists to actually occur and is obviously real ... called entanglement.

So here we have this mysterious "umbilical cord" (in Kaku's own words) that is able to connect one particle with it's partner NO MATTER HOW FAR APART they are ... across the entire universe, if necessary ... and yes, they remain connected to each other.
Therefore, this must SURELY mean that the idea that 2 chunks of identical dna can "communicate or talk" to each other across a distance as described in this thread MUST be true ... after all, here we finally have the evidence that I, or darth as I've come to be affectionately known as (thanks Foxie !) have been screaming for.
Surely this new Youtube clip will shut me up once and for all with it's undeniable evidence and PROVE finally exactly what this thread has been saying is TRUE !

Well, pardners ... not so fast ...

The premise of this thread is that some "person" (I won't call them scientist) has stated that one piece of dna can influence a similar piece of dna when one of the dna's is somehow stimulated emotionally. Somehow, and completely without a shred of evidence to back it up, we're asked to believe that communication between the 2 pieces of dna has occurred and information has transferred from the "sender dna" to the "receiver dna".

I assume that at this point, we're all in agreement that this is the gist of this thread ... yes ?
Ok, good.

Well, sorry to break it to you "believers" in emotional dna communication but the latest Youtube vid absolutely craps all over this outlandish dna communication fiasco.

How so, you ask ?

Well, Kaku himself dropped the axe on this thread.

For the receiving dna to be aware that something has emotionally affected the sending dna, obviously some kind of communication between the 2 dna's MUST occur ... still with me ? ... good.

Now, communication implies that information has transferred from the sender to the receiver, otherwise how would the receiver dna know that somethings happened to the sender dna ... still with me ? good.

Unfortunately however, it's been proven many times in the lab (and Kaku himself stresses this very point in his vid), that using entanglement between 2 particles (or 2 dna's), it's impossible to send ANY information between the 2 entities. At best, entanglement can only send RANDOM NOISE between them ... and random noise contains NO INFORMATION whatsoever.
Therefore, as per Kaku's vid, the 2 dna's CANNOT be communicating using entanglement.

So, if entanglement as the means of communication between the 2 dna's has been eliminated, it certainly looks like this thread once more doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Once again, I feel I must thank Kappy for providing the 2 bullets required to shoot this ludicrous thread down in flames ... and shoot him/her self in the foot in the process of trying to discredit me



ETA: Kappy, did you REALLY understand what Kaku was on about regarding entanglement and how it works ?
edit on 12/1/12 by tauristercus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


Like i said he is asking me to give him something i can not, i know nothing about half of that stuff you said, i just know this works cos i believe it does, and what im saying is maybe thats part of itis in believing it and just not questioning it cos when you do you no longer might think it will work or 2nd guess yourself etc.
Anyway like i said i know nothing about half of what you said or him your the ones with all the brains get a bunch of people together that just believe in something and test them and see what happens maybe?, like i said i can post a video later of my grandma if you want? saying how much better her foot is after i healed her. you dont have to believe it put please dont try to make me 2nd guess myself cos i know as soon as i do i will lose this gift i seem to have...



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by metalshredmetal

Ooh, very impressive post! Congrats on your ignorance!

Perhaps you should write a book that provides evidence for your opinion?
Maybe it will debut at #16 on the new york times best seller list like wilcock's book did?
Maybe your book will have 177 five starReviews like his does?

Phat chance.
Youre opinion is the minority.
stop fearing what you dont understand.


Doesn't matter if you believe his crap or not, his recorded predictions not coming to pass are not opinions. So what exactly am I ignorant of?

Had I known you had rage issues, I would have passed on pointing it out, didn't mean to shat on your messiah.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mcdgray129
 


In my opinion no one can or should try to disabuse you of your beliefs, as should be reflected in my post re: my respect for people's beliefs. You can and should believe whatever you wish, and you should not second-guess those beliefs unless you find some meaning and purpose in that for yourself. Some might say you should, but that is your prerogative and your prerogative alone ultimately.

But there's a difference between holding a belief, and asserting for a fact that a study with no reproducible, specific methodology is scientifically valid or scientific proof of that belief. And people asking for said methodology does not constitute them being rigid or closed-minded.
edit on 1/12/2012 by AceWombat04 because: Typo



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
Yeah, I agree that maybe the Science and Technology Forum was maybe the wrong place to post this. I don't think the guy in the vid is actually a scientist, right? I think he is a Researcher of Science. So, without proof of claims it maybe should have been posted in another forum.

Peace



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by angellicview
Yeah, I agree that maybe the Science and Technology Forum was maybe the wrong place to post this. I don't think the guy in the vid is actually a scientist, right?
He's an ex-computer programmer, who pretends to be a scientist:

www.energygrid.com...

"Braden lectures as a scientist. He uses scientific vocabulary and name drops scientific theories. He uses phrases like "scientists do not doubt this". He even presents himself as a scientist who used to work for the aerospace industries (I subsequently found out he was only a computer programmer). Given the context in which he presents himself and his ideas, it is very obvious that his basic message is: "What I am presenting is scientific." "If someone presents themselves and their ideas in this way, then they have given us the framework by which to assess what they are saying.
If he wore a long robe and preached his mystical beliefs on Sunday morning as a religion, he wouldn't deserve the bashing he's getting here.

But he's not presenting it as religion, he's presenting it as science, so without any scientific support of his claims, feel free to bash away. He deserves it, he really, really does.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Asking people to "just believe" is everyone's prerogative
I agree with most of what you wrote. But this statement...really?

You think it's my prerogative to ask everyone to believe in the flying spaghetti monster that was researched in secret military experiments, but sorry I can't show you the paper because it was a secret military thing? You really think it's OK for me to ask you and everyone else to believe that? Because I don't think it's ok.

Other than that, you get a star for a thoughtful, well-written post.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Yes in my opinion it's your prerogative to say that. Acting like we all have to is another matter entirely.
Apologies if my meaning was less than clear.

I was trying to say if you want to ask us to believe in something, that's fine. We can likewise choose not to, and that's fine too. But when you assert something for a fact, and provide no scientifically valid proof thereof, then a problem arises.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 

Oh you were plenty clear about acting like we all have to believe it!

But I don't think it's OK for me to ask you to believe it. I'm not saying I should be locked up or shot, or anything like that...I'm just saying it's not OK. It's OK for me to believe it, if I want, we agree on that. But I don't even think I should be asking you to believe it. I guess we can agree to disagree on that.



new topics

top topics



 
107
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join