DNA Phantom effect

I am relatively new to ATS, so forgive me if this has been beaten to death by threads already. I looked around on the boards, and could not find but mere mentions of this.

Dr. Vladimir Poponin's discovery along with Dr. Peter Gariaev, if true, is revolutionary. It is called the DNA Phantom Effect. It involves physical DNA that somehow attracts and manipulates light in a vacuum chamber, when the light should be random. Upon removing the DNA from the experiment, apparently the light stayed organized. I am no physicist, but I understand the jist of the idea. The implications of this discovery, to me, are almost too good to be true.

As of the time of this post, I have not found much to discredit this theory.

There are many sites that include this discovery, many being of alternative healing and science=spirituality nature. Many are of the type of 'too good to be true.'

Let's do what ATS seems to be so good at, and debunk it if indeed false, or be amazed if it's true.

en.wikipedia.org...
Gariaev mentioned

www.fractal.org...

homepages.ihug.co.nz...

www.thequantumsite.com...

For now, I'm going to have to believe in it, as all I can find is how smart the two men are. The deeper I dig, the more legitimate it seems to me, but have at it.

I have heard of this before and I find it quite fascinating. I have not heard of any debunking of it, but I suspect that the problem is not so much whether it has been debunked or not, but if the results have ever been properly verified.

Obviously this would have to be reproduced in other laboratories under controlled conditions, ans so far I have not heard of any attempts to do this.

The obvious first question would be if other objects affect photons in the same way, for example a grain of salt, or a fossil.

Well there are mediums that 'bend' or change the speed of light. Water, lenses, prisms, glass, atmosphere. But these are all similar effects from similar mediums. We are talking DNA- something that is in every nook and cranny of our being.

I have a great visual in my head of this experiment of light spiraling in a double helix form.

If indeed correct, the DNA Phantom effect would lend credibility to so many theories that have always been referred to as just 'science fiction.'

We can literally transmit 'ourselves' or our 'information' through light. I wonder how fiber optics and this relate...

If DNA can harness light, and we are made up of DNA in the most basic parts of our being, then are we harnessing light right now?



[edit on 6-1-2009 by beebs]

Originally posted by beebs

As of the time of this post, I have not found much to discredit this theory.

To be honest, I would be surprised if you found anything at ALL to support this theory?!

That sounds 'skeptical' but its not, I have come across this information via various sources (Drunvalo Melchizedek being one of them), tried to look for various sources on this subject myself.

I would really appreciate it if you could post any 'credible' sources you may have. All i ever found were 2nd,3rd,4th-100th hand information, anecdotal at best.

Welcome to ATS by the way, its god-damn beautiful here! I hope you enjoy your stay as much as I have

Cheers
AoN

This is an interesting read...
www.frontiernet.net...

He is saying that if we cannot repeat the experiment to prove the DNA Phantom effect, we can at least infer it from the surrounding evidence.

link didn't work

Wilcock is always on top of those smart Russians:
www.divinecosmos.com...


biophysics.50megs.com...

www.genoterra.ru...

There is plenty enough to support it, that is why I started this thread AoN. Most of the first sites that come up, you are right, are second hand.

However I believe Wilcock is fairly credible, and he has taken to the theory.

[edit on 8-1-2009 by beebs]

Originally posted by beebs
Well there are mediums that 'bend' or change the speed of light. Water, lenses, prisms, glass, atmosphere. But these are all similar effects from similar mediums. We are talking DNA- something that is in every nook and cranny of our being.

I have a great visual in my head of this experiment of light spiraling in a double helix form.

If indeed correct, the DNA Phantom effect would lend credibility to so many theories that have always been referred to as just 'science fiction.'

We can literally transmit 'ourselves' or our 'information' through light. I wonder how fiber optics and this relate...

If DNA can harness light, and we are made up of DNA in the most basic parts of our being, then are we harnessing light right now?

[edit on 6-1-2009 by beebs]

Do we not harness light rays from the sun as heat energy?

This is just more complex because we don't understand it yet.

reply to post by beebs


I am interested in more information as well. I first learned of the DNA phantom effect in Gregg Braden's book, Speaking the lost language of God. He goes into other known experiments that suggest our profoundly direct relationship with the world. My guess is it is still too young for anyone to stamp their name to it. So many variables that could challenge this theory.. but it hasn't been debunked either. Exciting times we are in indeed! I will keep searching with you guys

reply to post by beebs


Star and Flag

I subscribe to an idea that Electromagnetic radiation drives and composes the universe. I also believe that the em energy used in "thought" can actually go beyond the boundaries of the brain and embed into surrounding objects (including dna). This is the first I've heard about a dna phantom effect and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Oh my god, you are my saviour. I am doing a science fair topic on the DNA Phantom effect. What i am doing is to see the different patterns of light that are observed using diffferent frequencies of light. Anyone have any ideas to how it would effect the diffraction or any comments on what i should see. Also maybe any suggestions? I have done this same topic last year with a laser and ... IT WORKED, and another exciting thing was that the tube in which the dna was in started to GLOW! It was phenomanol. That means i will definetly do it again this year.


Also i am new to ATS so any advice on how or what to use the website for please, any suggestions?

Oh my god, you are my saviour. I am doing a science fair topic on the DNA Phantom effect. What i am doing is to see the different patterns of light that are observed using diffferent frequencies of light. Anyone have any ideas to how it would effect the diffraction or any comments on what i should see. Also maybe any suggestions? I have done this same topic last year with a laser and ... IT WORKED, and another exciting thing was that the tube in which the dna was in started to GLOW! It was phenomanol. That means i will definetly do it again this year.


Also i am new to ATS so any advice on how or what to use the website for please, any suggestions?

sorry for not being clear in the last thread, the tube which held plant dna, after the light source had stopped, had started glowing! and that happened untill a couple of seconds untill the tube was accidentally was shaken.

reply to post by dishakn


Sounds very cool. Could you perhaps describe in more detail precisely what you're research/experiment/data/presentation is all about?

Thanks for the bump, I had forgotten about this thread, but a very cool topic...

Maybe I will search the net for newer info on this.

Sounds cool doesn't it? Too bad it's BS. Want me to debunk it? Easy. Show me at least one article about "DNA phantom effect" published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. Until then consider it debunked.

reply to post by rhinoceros


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Debunking using a fallacy is not very good debunking...

Admittedly I haven't researched this for several months now, so perhaps there is something more substantial than what I have posted so far.

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by rhinoceros

 

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Debunking using a fallacy is not very good debunking...

Admittedly I haven't researched this for several months now, so perhaps there is something more substantial than what I have posted so far.

So when I say that there's a golden sumatran rhino statue orbiting Pluto it exists until somebody proves that it doesn't exist?

That's not how science is done. Science is show & tell, not tell alone.

p.s. Good luck finding those articles, I didn't get a single hit from ISI Web of Knowledge for "DNA phantom effect"

reply to post by rhinoceros


Haha, don't ever try these tactics when arguing with a professor in philosophy, you will get worked. I am not, but am 2 years away from being one, so I have had many discussions on the sort.

You have just used yet another fallacy, namely the Straw Man, with your example of a golden sumatran rhino statue orbiting Pluto.

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

wiki

You should also know that scientists do not use fallacies.

I actually don't know whether the DNA phantom effect is real or not, it was the purpose of creating this thread to get some positive and constructive feedback, so thank you for searching ISI.

The implications of the effect are enormous, so that probably does mean it is fake. But it could also mean that it is so important that it is being suppressed(not unheard of during the Bush admin.) by the Russians.

The two possibilities are empirically equivalent to me right now, I respect your early call that this is not real, or at least not verifiable.

reply to post by beebs

I started listing all your fallacies, but then I realized that it would take for ever (yes there were that many) and frankly I didn't see the point of it so whatever. In your opinion DNA phantom effect and golden sumatran rhino statue differ how exactly? Claims were made, no evidence was shown. Neither has been proven nor disproven (your words: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"). Also if we're about to start a pissing contest about our possible degrees. Well here's food for thought, perhaps a philosopher shouldn't argue about biology, with a biologist? (if you call this argument from authority, well it wasn't me who started with the degrees stuff so don't) Please no more fallacy talk. It's really boring.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by rhinoceros]

Something else I'd like to hear feedback on from ATS members that may very well be related to this topic is the story about the scientist who changed a salamander embryo into a frog by shining infrared light through frog DNA onto the salamander embryo.

I trust most people here have heard of this. I'm not providing any links because the only ones I've come across have all co-opted this supposed fact into their whacked out theories.

It does seem like a reasonably simple thing to replicate, and even experiment with at home. Anyone know where I could find some real information on this?

The wikipedia article first linked is accurate up to the statement that begins "But the Seattle thinktank..."

OAK is deeply into the woo. Bioenergetics, psychotronics, these are your signposts that say "from here be bad science".

reply to post by rhinoceros


I would appreciate that list of fallacies.. I am trying to avoid them in my own arguments. After re-reading my posts in this thread, I can't really see any fallacies in them. But then again, they are always more hidden when it is our own reasoning, as opposed to critiquing others. I am sorry to point out your fallacies, and I'm sorry you feel the way you do.

This thread was created to investigate the matter further than what I have provided. A debunking based on scientific concepts would be nice.

@The Cusp: Yes, the experiment with the salamander and frog embryo's is exactly what we are talking about here too. But I haven't seen concrete evidence for those either. Just rumors.

@Bedlam: Any comments on any of the other several links provided? Obviously wikipedia is not the best source...

Thanks for the replies everyone.