EPTWhat is hidden from us: Cure for Cancer - Page 13
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
RandomAccount139135
40 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On April 10 2011 13:48 LG)Sabbath wrote: I'm gonna be a little pedantic: the only difference between a law and a theory is the amount of people who support it. I am by no means suggesting that Newton was wrong, just that it is possible (albeit really unlikely) that he was. Newton was wrong though. Completely and utterly wrong, it's kind of funny how arrogant dharma is about his lack of knowledge though :p | ||
|
CuriousMoose
United States73 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
| ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On April 08 2011 18:47 MamiyaOtaru wrote: this type of thread is an excellent shibboleth. divides the retards from the norms really well This. But it's always surprising just how many retards there are that believe in these crazy conspiracy theories. | ||
|
ambient_orange
170 Posts
 i cant vouch for the story to be completely true, but something like that definately happened. Also you dont have to be smart to understand countries are for exploit people, not to free from diseases, works.. | ||
|
Rareware
Canada340 Posts
On April 11 2011 04:06 ambient_orange wrote: there was a guy who was able to cure 100% patients who had eye problems.. or no eye vision at all.. but countries didnt even considered his proposals, only japan tried, and then said, its gonna blow the economy... so.. *f.. the people* i cant vouch for the story to be completely true, but something like that definately happened. Also you dont have to be smart to understand countries are for exploit people, not to free from diseases, works.. Wait a minute curing eye problems and blindness blows the economy? Also if your not putting up sources than why should I believe you? | ||
|
Polis
Poland1292 Posts
On April 11 2011 03:58 KlaCkoN wrote: Yes for certain systems Newtons laws are good approximations. That doesn't mean they aren't wrong. But not utterly, and completely wrong. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm | ||
|
Geovu
Estonia1344 Posts
If this weren't true then how could you possibly explain the polio vaccines? You could make a lot of money off of keeping everyone stuffed with pills to delay the virus, and yet iirc the vaccine is FREE (At least in Canada) and offered to toddlers/newborns. | ||
|
Dagobert
Netherlands1858 Posts
Please. + Show Spoiler [Moderately large, relevant picture] + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vD0Mn.gif) | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On April 11 2011 04:13 Polis wrote: But not utterly, and completely wrong. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm Haha thank you for that essay, Assimov is great. On the other hand newtons laws -> classical theory of electromagnetism -> all matter is predicted to glow in the dark. Which is pretty close to what I would call "completely wrong" Then again that's more me trying to find an elegant way to back out of a lost argument. So fine I concede :p | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
Explanation of the device and technology used in the above video http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/music/aholland/PlasmaTwo.htm | ||
|
Jopz
United States262 Posts
On April 11 2011 05:29 -Archangel- wrote: http://vodpod.com/watch/5881967-rife-bare-plasma-experiment-destroys-organisms-september-21-2007 What do local scientist have to say about this? Are you serious? That's a video of God knows what with some random classical music played over it and someone claiming that the music is "destroying" the organisms. If you really want to sway people link sources in peer-reviewed publications or sources that at least show and try to explain the experimental set-up being used. I could just as easily get a video of a nuclear test and play Tenacious D over it and claim that they cause nuclear explosions to happen~.~. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On April 11 2011 05:38 Jopz wrote: Are you serious? That's a video of God knows what with some random classical music played over it and someone claiming that the music is "destroying" the organisms. If you really want to sway people link sources in peer-reviewed publications or sources that at least show and try to explain the experimental set-up being used. I could just as easily get a video of a nuclear test and play Tenacious D over it and claim that they cause nuclear explosions to happen~.~. I edited my post with what you asked. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On April 11 2011 03:58 KlaCkoN wrote: Yes for certain systems Newtons laws are good approximations. That doesn't mean they aren't wrong. Actually, that does mean they're wrong. Something is only right when it is correct and accurate completely and totally in all cases. Now, there are varying degrees of "wrong". 4.9999999 obviously isn't 5.0, but it's not that far from it either. | ||
|
Craton
United States17274 Posts
| ||
|
Kasu
United Kingdom345 Posts
On April 11 2011 06:12 -Archangel- wrote: OK, I have updated the OP with better links to better data that I have found in the meantime. Those links are just as full of incorrect science and incorrect or non-existent sources as all the original stuff. There is no new data at all, just more articles spouting the exact same stuff that has been so widely rejected by anyone who thinks about it critically and logically for one second. More people saying the wrong thing doesn't make it right. Yes we know radiation kills or damages organisms. Does that have any relevence whatsoever to this resonant-frequency theory? No. Yes we know glass can be destroyed by resonance from sound waves. Does that have any bearing on using electromagnetic waves to "resonate" cancer cells to death? I mean come on, what possible reason is there that it would? Its the same bullshit over and over. People who have no idea what they are talking about grabbing hold of some big "sensation" because they can't find anything that is actually meaningful to do. | ||
|
DharmaTurtle
United States283 Posts
An outdated blog at a small liberal arts college does not science make. The author of the blog is this guy http://cms.skidmore.edu/music/faculty/holland/upload/Holland-CV.pdf who, as you'll note, is a professor of MUSIC. He is a smart guy, speaks five languages, but his antics in a lab are far from evidence of anything. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On April 11 2011 06:35 Kasu wrote: Those links are just as full of incorrect science and incorrect or non-existent sources as all the original stuff. There is no new data at all, just more articles spouting the exact same stuff that has been so widely rejected by anyone who thinks about it critically and logically for one second. More people saying the wrong thing doesn't make it right. Yes we know radiation kills or damages organisms. Does that have any relevence whatsoever to this resonant-frequency theory? No. Yes we know glass can be destroyed by resonance from sound waves. Does that have any bearing on using electromagnetic waves to "resonate" cancer cells to death? I mean come on, what possible reason is there that it would? Its the same bullshit over and over. People who have no idea what they are talking about grabbing hold of some big "sensation" because they can't find anything that is actually meaningful to do. I guess you only read the first link. Others ones have plenty of scientific info. You just need to read first before saying bullshit here. Anyways by what I read there is no more conspiracy here. This technology is now being researched by plenty of people and it is only a matter of time before it is put to wide use. | ||
| ||
