Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Scientists investigate water memory

page: 3
46
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 
McTaggart includes the water experiments in her work

edit on 13-4-2013 by bottleslingguy because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 





If it's a real effect it most likely has it's roots in some sort of quantum observer effect where the consciousness of the person making the drops some how affects the way the water molecules behave on a quantum level.


It's amazing how two people can look at a presentation and come away with totally different perspectives. What I see is the complete debunking of a god or observer or whatever you want to call it. If water can come out of chaos and into uniformity (to retain and form information) then there's no need for an intelligent entity to inject that information into the universe. For me, the making of life is simply a matter of Just add water.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 





what I am saying is... the ice structures turn out the way they do because of the influence the observer has on the water molecules at the quantum level. The structures aren't displaying something which was stored or memorized in the water, but rather the structures are being influenced into specific shapes by the observer.


What this suggests should actually be quite frightening if true to the believers in an observer or a god. If man is the observer that makes water turn into the shape of love - if love isn't already imprinted on the water - then that universal observer or god is not love. Sounds real scary to me.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by YouSir
 



Ummm...until you get to the part of when they put different flowers into the water...Perhaps the flowers were quantum imprinting themselves into the water then...which would seem to imply consciousness on the part of the flower...would it not?

No it would probably imply that the different flowers illicit different feelings in the observers and those feelings/information propagate into the water. They just assume it's the flower when really it's them.

EDIT: and this is probably the exact same effect happening in Emoto's experiment where they play music and stuff. The music affects the observers and that effects the structure of the water. The water doesn't directly react to the music as if it were alive, it reacts to the conscious observers who are reacting to the music.
edit on 13/4/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 09:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


What I said had nothing to do with god or religion. I do not believe in god for the record, I believe in evolution. What I was saying is that consciousness has an affect on quantum objects, and it's easy to prove with experiments like the double split experiment. This is probably a manifestation of that phenomena in a more obvious way. The formation of ice crystals is an extremely chaotic and sensitive process. Any slight change to the molecular structure of the water can result in an almost infinite array of different crystal structures. It's not a leap of logic to assume the small influence our consciousness has on the quantum molecular structure of the water can influence the way the crystals form, arising from the subtle quantum impact of consciousness on the molecules.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


So it's not memory, it's just a record of how the person was influencing the water. Once the crystals melt, all record will be lost. It's not memory, it's suspended animation.


But is this not cool? It's pretty awesome to think that our thoughts could be affecting molecules precarious enough to be susceptible to such influence. Who cares if it isn't water memory? Our ideas have a very discernible energy that affects the world around us, and these crystals supports that theory.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


What about different flowers changing the water to that flowers "shape" in the crystals? Is a flower an observer/entity? Are all objects that can influence the water "shapes" an observer?

If the researcher had an effect as they can(as was shown with unique patterns for different people), should it not display their own definable pattern as they had recorded and not the flower?
edit on 4/13/2013 by Metatronin because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



But is this not cool? It's pretty awesome to think that our thoughts could be affecting molecules precarious enough to be susceptible to such influence.

Yes it is cool and awesome. It's already fascinating enough without having to bring "water is alive" into the theory. And it's still probably out-of-the-box enough to be rejected at a glance by most mainstream scientists. Even I'm not sure the effect is real, I'd need to look more closely at the results of all these water crystal experiments but I can't be bothered.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 01:18 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure this memory idea has been shredded as utter bunk within the past few years. The only reasonable thing that could apply is influencing the crystal structure of the water through sound waves or movement-generated waves. Come on, my local seismo's always recording ground movement to some degree or another, and I'm not even in a seismic zone. Do you not think that instead of some pseudoscience hippie-dippy love fluff, that natural interference might play a much bigger role in how the crystals turn out that a moneysuck scientist repeating some words and claiming emotional influence does? Look at the Japanese researcher. Now go dig up some of the Japanese seismos. I would really love to know what the seismos looked like during his experiments. We seem to think that it's us and only us that influence the world, and yet, we tend to forget that we have a limited sense of color, a limited sense of smell, a limited sense or hearing, etc. What we can't sense probably (and surely, in my opinion) plays a bigger role here in crystal structure than his emotional words do.


That said, if I sing Barry White to my shower, is it going to romance me in return? I hope not, that's just bad B-rate sci-fi to me.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce
This claim is from 2011, and is just a hoax.

www.scilogs.com...


I can't see why the word hoax would be used this guy was not out to Hoax anyone. Maybe the whole thing is about quantum bound particles, we have yet to see what the future holds.


From 1965 to 1969 he worked at CNRS, the French cancer research institute, and from 1969 to 1972 at the Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation in California. He made a name for himself as one of a team that isolated a blood hormone called platelet-activating factor. Returning to France, he was appointed head of the Inserm immunology laboratory in Paris. Here he patented an allergy test called the basophil degranulation test. It was hardly original - he just gave it a commercial application. Most experts regard the test as useless. Benveniste published 230 scientific papers, many of them in reputable journals. Towards the end of his life he compared himself with Galileo and repeatedly stated that he was in the running for a Nobel Prize.

www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by YouSir
 



Ummm...until you get to the part of when they put different flowers into the water...Perhaps the flowers were quantum imprinting themselves into the water then...which would seem to imply consciousness on the part of the flower...would it not?

No it would probably imply that the different flowers illicit different feelings in the observers and those feelings/information propagate into the water. They just assume it's the flower when really it's them.

EDIT: and this is probably the exact same effect happening in Emoto's experiment where they play music and stuff. The music affects the observers and that effects the structure of the water. The water doesn't directly react to the music as if it were alive, it reacts to the conscious observers who are reacting to the music.
edit on 13/4/2013 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)
Ummm...Then it's a good thing that I was only asking a question and...NOT...claiming knowledge of fact...not having conducted the experiment myself...that is. In the video the "researcher" points to a beaker of water and states that the water in the beaker...still..."retained the memory". This would seem to counter your thoughts on wether this "memory" was akin to "flash" or more solid state...in the liquid. As to wether this is the result of quantum imprinting due to "human consciousness" or a more generalized...the force is with you...pranamaic/Qi...consciousness, remains to be determined.

I suppose that an experiment could be set up to remove the human factor through randomization and double blind controls. I think that if the only human consciousness impingement were in viewing recordings...after the fact...along with human consciousness trials then perhaps we could gain a better understanding...but certainly not conclusion...at least not yet..................IMO.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 






No it would probably imply that the different flowers illicit different feelings in the observers and those feelings/information propagate into the water. They just assume it's the flower when really it's them.


I think when looking like experiments like this it becomes clear that are views of subject and observer break down. Instead of being reductionist about it would it not make more sense that mabe the observer and the flower are both having an affect on the water. What reason do you have to think that a flower cannot leave and observable memory and the human mind can.

.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 





So it's not memory, it's just a record of how the person was influencing the water. Once the crystals melt, all record will be lost. It's not memory, it's suspended animation.


Why do you not think it is a memory. It is a record of how a person and a flower influence water. Yes once the crystals melt all records will be lost. Is your hard drive any different if I melted that all the memory would be lost too...



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 



Why do you not think it is a memory. It is a record of how a person and a flower influence water. Yes once the crystals melt all records will be lost. Is your hard drive any different if I melted that all the memory would be lost too...


So if I fart and leave the room, does the air have memory because traces of my glorious methane linger in my wake?
edit on 13-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Metatronin
 





What about different flowers changing the water to that flowers "shape" in the crystals? Is a flower an observer/entity? Are all objects that can influence the water "shapes" an observer?


The flower has the ability to sense its environment. It is just as capable of influencing water as we are. But it is not an object it is a living thing. Can other objects influence water. I do not really know. Maybe one day we will find out.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Metatronin
 


In Lyall Watson's Supernature, documented experiments suggest that plants possess a profound connection to one another. For instance, they will react to organisms associated with previous harmful contact. Even better, when one plant suffers harmful contact, an isolated plant nearby will react without cause. Such findings imply a connection that transcends conventional methods of communication. In other words, plants can be considered observers based on the results of these experiments. Other experiments, as recorded in The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Christopher bird, show that trees emit a high frequency when threatened in order to discourage predators.

In all, I think it's safe to suggest that plants aren't as simple as some would declare.
edit on 13-4-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


If I walked into the room after you left and smelt it. I might think omg AfterInfinity has been in here and past wind. How might I know that. My nose would use the information available in the air to tell me so. So yes you could say that air has a memory. However the information in the air is not stable the fart will dissipated through the air and the information will be lost.

Maybe if you where a fish and farted in water instead of the air a memory would be recorded in the water. A fart is a composition of gasses and bacteria. The bacteria are living things so maybe a record would be left.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Lyall Watson's Supernature is a fantastic book I read it years ago and forgot about till now when you just mentioned it. A little off topic He wrote another stunner called Heavens Breath or something like that. All about the different types of wind you can get and what affects they have on us.

Plants are not simple. Recently they have found that some plants communicate with each other with clicks in the ground. We do not give plants the credit they deserve.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Lyall Watson's Supernature is a fantastic book I read it years ago and forgot about till now when you just mentioned it. A little off topic He wrote another stunner called Heavens Breath or something like that. All about the different types of wind you can get and what affects they have on us.

Plants are not simple. Recently they have found that some plants communicate with each other with clicks in the ground. We do not give plants the credit they deserve.



posted on Apr, 13 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 



Have you watched this. If not I think you might enjoy it...






new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join