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.
Originally posted by Bedlam
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
No, you aren't. You are acting self important giving me information that has nothing to do with my questions.
Giving you information you don't want to hear, because it contradicts what you want to be true, more likely.
Now who is emotional? I had never heard of Turin before today. Zero emotional investment. One person said unicorns, I guess due to your emotional investment that becomes the rest of the field. Here is what others have to say.
In addition to the repeated "I'm rubber and you're glue" arguments, you become very heated when any evidence to the contrary is presented.
Tim Jacob, a smell researcher at the University of Cardiff, said the work was "supportive but not conclusive".
"But the fact is that nobody has been able to unequivocally contradict [Dr Turin]," he told BBC News.
And according to Keller and Vosshall, "Whether because of skepticism or 'scientific conspiracy' (as alleged in the book and echoed in most reviews) his predictions have failed to generate empirical tests by other researchers", meaning, not many people have been interested in it enough to try contradicting him.
Columbia University's Richard Axel, whose work on mapping the genes and receptors of our sense of smell garnered the 2004 Nobel prize for physiology, said the kinds of experiments revealed this week would not resolve the debate - only a microscopic look at the receptors in the nose would finally show what is at work.
"Until somebody really sits down and seriously addresses the mechanism and not inferences from the mechanism... it doesn't seem a useful endeavour to use behavioural responses as an argument," he told BBC News.
"Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing off this theory, but I need data and it hasn't been presented."
Another who sees no problem with the research, but doesn't think any behavioral response is enough to say either way.
And I agree with him. What I don't agree with is that deuterating substances does not cause steric changes - it does.
But, you know better than the experts, including a Nobel prize for physiology winner, who find no flaw with the study.
That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying it's equivocal, and doesn't properly determine anything, which again, I do agree with.
Apparently you do since you liken the research that has been peer reviewed and has interested serious people who are well known in the field to a fringe non-scientific website. Either you do have a dog you are invested in, or you are just being a complete tool.
You are revealing your inability to read for understanding. Here, let me help you:
"It's not like I'm getting this stuff from Alex Jones, Educate Yourself or bibliotecalyapades."
You may note that I did not say "your cite is the equivalent of Alex Jones", when you disagreed with the differences in hydrogen bond lengths and angles in deuterated substances, I said that I am not getting my data from Educate Yourself or bibliotecalyapades. And I'm not. I understand on ATS that those are considered legitimate sources, but I am citing peer reviewed information.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
I did find your pompous attitude revolting though.
Lack of interest does not mean anything. How do you call yourself a 'professional' and believe interest has any bearing? The fact is Turin has not been contradicted, and Turin is not based out of someone's basement, but MIT. The wheel always turns more slowly at first. Pretty much every new idea works in the same way.
Yet you have failed at every opportunity I have given you to show the change is significant. If you really were a professional you would understand change is meaningless unless the change is significant. Significant in this case would mean the change is large enough to prevent the receptors from firing.
That's not what he's saying at all. He's saying it's equivocal, and doesn't properly determine anything, which again, I do agree with.
Wrong, that is what he is saying. He is saying the results do not matter. Only an examination of the receptors themselves will convince him. No behavioral test no matter how thorough or conclusive is enough in his mind.
Then why bring them up, since I cited legitimate peer reviewed information?
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
If you have access to a paper refuting the QM side and proves shape change was significant I would love to see it, please link it. As I said, I have no vested interest either way.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
They believe it is shape AND another process, which they believe is QB, that determines actual smell.
Originally posted by Bedlam
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
They believe it is shape AND another process, which they believe is QB, that determines actual smell.
Given the fact that a number of apparently decent studies seem to conflict that it's either shape, QM or (x), my gut feel is that it's probably multifactorial.
My real gripe is that the deuteration test, applied by EITHER camp, is going to give you an equivocal response since you're changing both aspects. Changing isotopes on the other elements, say the carbons, will give you less percentage change in shape, but less percentage change in QM resonance as well.