posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 07:34 PM
I'm fairly certain what's going on here is a post associative projection.
You make snowflakes in the lab, and look at them and essentially say "ahhhh", like it means something when in actuality, it doesn't.
Anyone can write words on bottles of water, or project strong emotions on water, create snowflakes from said water, and ... tadaaahh(!) point at the
resulting snowflake or snowflake image and CLAIM their thoughts made it that way.
Fact of the matter is, crystallography speaking, as the saying goes, every snowflake is unique.
Each and every Snowflake
typically forms a SIX dendrite radially symmetric geometry.
A non-aggregated snowflake often exhibits six-fold radial symmetry. The initial symmetry can occur because the crystalline structure of ice is
six-fold. The six "arms" of the snowflake, or dendrites, then grow independently, and each side of each arm grows independently. Most snowflakes are
not completely symmetric. The micro-environment in which the snowflake grows changes dynamically as the snowflake falls through the cloud, and tiny
changes in temperature and humidity affect the way in which water molecules attach to the snowflake. Since the micro-environment (and its changes) are
very nearly identical around the snowflake, each arm can grow in nearly the same way. However, being in the same micro-environment does not guarantee
that each arm grows the same; indeed, for some crystal forms it does not because the underlying crystal growth mechanism also affects how fast each
surface region of a crystal grows. Empirical studies suggest less than 0.1% of snowflakes exhibit the ideal six-fold symmetric shape
If anyone actually takes this stuff about thought projection influencing ice crystal formation seriously, and they want others to so as well, then,
showing ambiguously interpretive photos of typical and predictably uniform ice crystals isn't going to prove anything.
They'd need demonstrate an ability to dictate exact geometries repetitively on demand, under objective supervision.
For instance, if thought can influence ice crystal formation, then, let's see someone think nothing but snow flakes with a specific and defined
geometry ahead of time into existence under conditions they have zero control over other than this supposed magical thought influence.
In my opinion this is new agey pseudo-scientific fluff.
edit on 12/3/2013 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)