Cantr II Discussion Forum

Thought this was interesting, wanted to share:

http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/research_emoto.htm

Wow, that's so unreal. It's like water has a mind, or should I say, life of its own. I would see the results of water listening to techno and see what it thinks! Much thanks for this link to a whole new perspective into water.

Ah, now i know why shop sold bottled water leaves a bitter taste to the mouth. It because the price label on it may aswell be a swear word label when you look at the cost. It's probably all that saying "Crap, look at that for the price of ruddy water" that turns it's pretty picture formations ugly before drinking it.

That Chinese/Japanese guy looks like the one in all the Dharma videos on Lost.

Masaru is nuts.

He shows no proof. He does nothing to duplicate his so called results.

At best. He is a hack that needs to be put under psychiatric care.
And what? This guy thinks water can have moods?
Water is for drinking. Water is not there to play music to.

There's no way he could duplicate his results. Every crystal is unique and different from the other, but may follow similar patterns from one cause. And he seemed to used water having "moods" as a metaphor. Now that I think about it, it's pretty reasonable for water to react from such sound and "written" vibrations since water is so malleable. As for why water seems to be more structured in positive conditions and broken up in negative ones, search me.

I'm pretty sure that Mr.Emoto is definitely not nuts. A better word would probably be rich. You can make much money real fast with all that esoteric mumbo jumbo.

I really doubt that any of his results would be reproducable and I think the speed of the freezing process, the amount of seed crystals and so on have more effect on the crystal shape than anything else.

By the way, how would the crystals look like if you tell the water a word what means "I like you" in one language and "I hope you die soon" in another?
Maybe it depends on where the water is coming from...

Piscator wrote:...I really doubt that any of his results would be reproducable and I think the speed of the freezing process, the amount of seed crystals and so on have more effect on the crystal shape than anything else.

By the way, how would the crystals look like if you tell the water a word what means "I like you" in one language and "I hope you die soon" in another?
Maybe it depends on where the water is coming from...

As for the reproducability of his results, if speed of freezing, seed crystals and so on are of more effect than anything else, the results would be easily reproducable; just get water from where he got it from, freeze it at the same speed, and follow the other steps he took in his testing.

As for a word meaning something positive in one language, and something negative in another, the key is in what the word means; no matter how skilled a voice-actor one would be, the meaning behind what one says does tend to leave it's mark on intonations, no matter how subtle.

For fuck's sake.

This is the exact same bollcoks that bloody spritualists, homeopathics, crystal waving idiots and the like. It winds me up so much when people claim proof based on absolutely no formal study.

Don't believe it.

If these people could really do half of what they claimed they do, they wouldn't be working from small offices, homes or have the odd badly written webpage.

They'd be bloody nobel prize winners for having redrawn the rules of physics and chemistry.

I don't know.. I think I believe him..

I think I believe him because it's something that's got to do with my religion..

You see, Allah said in the Qur'an that whenever we should eat or drink we should say a prayer, something like "in the name of God" so it kind of makes sense what he's saying...

If anyone's actually interested in the science, read this (at least Dee should):

http://www.is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/

If you want some "alternative" science that is actually science, check out spindrift http://home.xnet.com/~spindrif/index.htm The beauty of their experiments is that they are easily reproducible (I wanted to test them at one point, but never got around to it).

I want to comment, but I'm just not where to start...



Control: 20-38 sprouts per container
Treated: 45-71 sprouts per container
Control: average 28.4 sprouts
Treated: average 52.6 sprouts
Average increase of treated over control: 85.2%

Sprouts per container vs prayer?

Control sprout growth: 11.5% average
X beans additional growth: 2.0%
Z beans additional growth: 3.1%
Y beans (double treatment) additional growth: 5.4%

Statistically significant over repeated tests? I doubt it, it's hardly statistically significant in one test.

And the same again for the others. I'm not sure I can even be bothered to go into the details of why that whole outfit is just shockingly misleading.



The thing which fucks me off more than people peddling crap to idiots by citing science jargon, are people who go through the motions of scientific experiment, and try to pass off one or two dubiously positive results as some kind of formal proof.



I promise you, that if you were to take a bunch of soya plants, pray over one lot, and not the other. And repeat this 10 times, the meta-result would be entirely inconclusive.

I can't comment either way, since I haven't done it, but why don't you go ahead and disprove it yourself. I'm pretty sure I remember them saying belief in God is not necessary for the prayer to work.

Whoa... whoa... this was pretty amusing until some people said they actually believed in it, and then others got angry at them, etc. etc.

I'm however going to go ahead and say that by absolutely no possible way of interpreting any science that we've discovered can anything like this be even remotely possible. This is just stupid pseudo-science, however, if you like that sort of stuff and get a kick out of believing in tosh, that's alright too, I'm not even going to go into why this is stupid

So HF, chill a little, but yes, you're very, very much in the right here

deadboy wrote:I'm however going to go ahead and say that by absolutely no possible way of interpreting any science that we've discovered can anything like this be even remotely possible. This is just stupid pseudo-science,

I never said I believed or disbelieved, but remember that pretty much all science we have today was at some point considered stupid pseudo-science (a round world, or the earth not being the center of the universe come to mind).

Also, if you've read up on your quantum theory, you'll know that all subatomic particles operate on probability, and that subatomic probability can be altered by observation. So based on that, the idea that an organism (in this case human) can affect an experiment by just observing it is not at all pseudoscience, although extending this principle to the macroscopic world is no doubt controversial. However, seeing as how the macroscopic world is composed of subatomic particles, I personally fail to logically see how observation would not be able to affect macroscopic objects.

As I said to HF, feel free to actually disprove it. Anyone can grow bean plants.