Darren New escreveu:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Oh, I see.  You want further proof from another skeptical.
> 
> Yes. That's called "repeatability," a fundamental property of scientific 
> theories.
> 
>> Maybe you only find many proofs from *supporters* because the 
>> scientific stabilishment don't generally enjoy researching into 
>> phenomena it can't explain and end-up with the same Scully-like 
>> conclusions as the skeptical researcher in the article?
> 
> No, actually, I found 14 different laboratories that tried and failed to 
> repeat the experiment, and one that repeated it twice, that one being 
> the homeopathy institute. And it was the same scientist repeating it 
> both times, let alone the same institute.

And yet the Newscientist article fails to mention this basic Google 
search at all.  Suspicious... Newscientist or NewAgeScientist? :P

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> No, actually, I found 14 different laboratories that tried and failed to 
> repeat the experiment, and one that repeated it twice, that one being the 
> homeopathy institute. And it was the same scientist repeating it both 
> times, let alone the same institute.

So the common element is the scientist performing the experiment...

Clearly, they have some supernatural mutant power-ability of which they 
aren't aware which is subconsciously affecting the results, thereby 
furthering the diabolical plot of the trans-global conspiracy to manipulate 
the economy and dissolve the fundamental cornerstones of society.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> "Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> I'd like to see someone *skeptical* replicate the experiment before I 
>>> say there's something there.
>>
>> That's the problem...the whole premise is that it works because you 
>> believe it does. 
> 
> I take it you didn't actually read the article?
> 
The truly sad thing then is that "placebo" works, sometimes, even when 
the person its given to is sure it won't, as long as certain 
psychological factors, including the attitude of the person giving it, 
imply otherwise. So.. They are saying what that homeopathy works so 
poorly it doesn't even work as well as other placebo effects? lol

But seriously, the funniest thing about the whole idea is that water 
will "remember" the beneficial effects they want, apparently, but not 
all the times its been poisoned, drank, dropped out in feces, or pissed 
out of the body, all the way back to before even the mesozoic period... 
I mean, if you drained a fracking nuclear reactor and then filtered out 
the radiation, according to "their" theory it would still have the 
"effect" of being radioactive. And, they would probably even agree. But 
if you took the same water, after it ran through a uranium mine, 
presuming you waiting for any radiation to leave it first, and added it 
to "homeopathy", it somehow remembers being a cancer cure, but not a 
cancer causer... Its idiotic.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> And yet the Newscientist article fails to mention this basic Google 
> search at all.  Suspicious... Newscientist or NewAgeScientist? :P

It wasn't a basic google search for me. It was someone else referring to the 
same list, pointing to the *actual* paper about it, and then hitting the 
citation cross-reference indexes to see what other scientists said about it.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> And yet the Newscientist article fails to mention this basic Google 
>> search at all.  Suspicious... Newscientist or NewAgeScientist? :P
> 
> It wasn't a basic google search for me. It was someone else referring to 
> the same list, pointing to the *actual* paper about it, and then hitting 
> the citation cross-reference indexes to see what other scientists said 
> about it.

In any case, not quite what one would expect from a respectable science 
magazine...

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> But seriously, the funniest thing about the whole idea is that water 
> will "remember" the beneficial effects they want, apparently, but not 
> all the times its been poisoned, drank, dropped out in feces, or pissed 
> out of the body, all the way back to before even the mesozoic period... 

  Hey, but the homeopathic theory goes that when you put something harmful
in the water and then dillute it, the effect becomes the opposite. Thus if
the water has been poisoned at some point, and then dilluted, then it
becomes a vaccine against poison.

  (I suppose "dilluting makes the effect reverse" makes some kind of
sense... if you have the IQ of a 2-year-old, that is. I suppose the logic
might go something like: When you take the harmful element away by
dilluting, likewise the harmful *effect* goes away, and it takes away
the harmful effect in anything that it touches.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html

  Btw, there's a very common misconception about the Theory of Relativity,
even among people who should know better.

  The ToR does *not* prohibit the distance between two points growing
faster than c. On the contrary, it actually *predicts* (as a consequence
of the GR equations) that it's possible.

  What it does prohibit is anything *travelling* from one point to another
faster than c, which is a subtly (but drastically) different thing.

  Thus eg. the cosmic inflation theory is not inherently against the ToR.
The equations allow it to happen.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html
> 
>   Btw, there's a very common misconception about the Theory of Relativity,
> even among people who should know better.
> 
>   The ToR does *not* prohibit the distance between two points growing
> faster than c. On the contrary, it actually *predicts* (as a consequence
> of the GR equations) that it's possible.
> 
>   What it does prohibit is anything *travelling* from one point to another
> faster than c, which is a subtly (but drastically) different thing.

It doesn't matter as long as it doesn't prohibit the distance between 
two points *shrinking* faster than c. ;)

Warp Drive, her we go! :D

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   (I suppose "dilluting makes the effect reverse" makes some kind of
> sense... if you have the IQ of a 2-year-old, that is. I suppose the logic
> might go something like: When you take the harmful element away by
> dilluting, likewise the harmful *effect* goes away, and it takes away
> the harmful effect in anything that it touches.)

No, it's supposedly more like the vaccine mechanism. By taking the ghost of 
the poison, your body overreacts and cures whatever has the same symptoms as 
the poison.

I only had it work once, and that's after all the other poison-ivy remedies 
failed to remedy. Not that I attribute it to the homeopathy, but I had 
little to lose but the $5 for the sugar pills. :-)

What I want to know is why people don't dilute placebos, then poison people 
with it. The perfect murder weapon!

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Warp Drive, her we go! :D

I read an article recently where theoretical physicists were arguing over 
whether *if* you made a bubble of flat space with a vehicle inside, and you 
moved it by squashing the space in front and stretching the space behind, 
whether the radiation caused would disrupt the interface between the two, 
and whether you could make two interfaces to prevent that problem...

So, yes, real scientists really are working on a real warp drive, in some 
sense. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!

Post a reply to this message