|
On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff..
Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat.
Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things?
Come on, can you seriously be that naïve?
|
On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve?
It's because once you believe in a conspiracy to cover up the conspiracy, you're opening yourself to believe in just about anything happening in history.
|
God damn trolls. Go away.
I found the article very interesting and the concept behind it isn't really so far fetched. Given the article itself may be poorly written and have a few holes in it, but the underlying theme could be true.
Thanks for posting.
|
On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve?
No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved.
|
On April 08 2011 23:01 TadH wrote:
God damn trolls. Go away.
I found the article very interesting and the concept behind it isn't really so far fetched. Given the article itself may be poorly written and have a few holes in it, but the underlying theme could be true.
Thanks for posting.
Did your liberal art class teach you that? Or are you a biologist?
How does one deem how far fetched something it with absolutely no background?
Heres something I found on the internet:
Energy can be created by altering the magnetic field strength of individual protons, because when protons are given an extra positive neutrino through positive beta decay of a radioactive substance, the extra strength of the charge carried by the protons will now be stronger than that of the electrons, and thus the magnetic pull will pull the electrons onto the nucleus where the two will cancel out into a neutron. Since we know that the mass of a proton + the mass of an electron is higher than that of a neutron, some energy must be created (remember we can relate mass to energy through E = MC^2).
This means, by altering the magnetic field of an extremely radioactive material, energy will be created in the forms of kinetic energy, which we all know will equal faster movement and thus be higher temperature. This can be used to heat steam and create electrical energy through moving a turbine (identical to that of a coal plant).
The reason why we do not use this technology is because of the vast benefits of governments hiding this technology. With radioactive substances (it doesn't have to be fission material, so it can be any radioactive substance even with a long half-life that is not dangerous) such as Rubidium 151, we can create "free" energy at little to no upkeep cost (only that of keeping the magnetic field running).
Do you believe this one may be true too, Archangel, and all those supporting the cancer theory?
|
Fun thing is...
This is from the 30ies and got covered up from the get go, no matter how big the political changes in the last 80 years were? That sounds scetchy.
Even better is...
Now everyone in the Internetz can read about it so it has to be true? From here on it gets plain retarded.
But hey... There are also people that honestly believe in Scientology.
|
On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved. Wrong, men understand waves are and how resonance works for centuries as well. Any educated people should know that saying you can cure cancer with it makes as much sense as saying you can cure poverty by punching a wall. His methods have already been disproved. You're only insisting in it because you're part of the laymen audience that article targets.
On April 08 2011 23:25 Velr wrote:
But hey... There are also people that honestly believe in Scientology. Coincidently or not. The whole concept of "curing with resonance" that this article cites. Is also used in Scientology!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioresonance_therapy
Coincidence? I think not! I'd bet Scientology can cure cancer!
|
On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve?
OK, I see nobody bothered to go through the second link i put there. The article is just a collection of stories and info about this scientist and his work. It is not about conspiracy theory. You people are taking things out of context.
If you want science behind it go read up on the second link.
|
On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved.
I find that hard to believe.
|
On April 08 2011 23:26 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved. Wrong, men understand waves are and how resonance works for centuries as well. Any educated people should know that saying you can cure cancer with it makes as much sense as saying you can cure poverty by punching a wall. His methods have already been disproved. You're only insisting in it because you're part of the laymen audience that article targets.
Who has disproven it? Have any links on scientific research that has tried to duplicate his work, failed and explained why it cannot work?
|
On April 08 2011 23:26 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved. Wrong, men understand waves are and how resonance works for centuries as well. Any educated people should know that saying you can cure cancer with it makes as much sense as saying you can cure poverty by punching a wall. His methods have already been disproved. You're only insisting in it because you're part of the laymen audience that article targets.
I don't really understand the start of your post. I'm not insisting on anything, I couldn't care less if this article has any backing to it or not... It doesn't affect me in the slightest, I'm just saying that I hate peole coming into a thread and posting "you're an idiot, this is wrong" and then leaving.
|
There wont be a cure for cancer, simply because there is too much economics behind it. Just like there will be no car running on water. Atleast not in the nearest future.
|
On April 08 2011 23:29 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:26 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved. Wrong, men understand waves are and how resonance works for centuries as well. Any educated people should know that saying you can cure cancer with it makes as much sense as saying you can cure poverty by punching a wall. His methods have already been disproved. You're only insisting in it because you're part of the laymen audience that article targets. Who has disproven it? Have any links on scientific research that has tried to duplicate his work, failed and explained why it cannot work? Yes I have, I have told you before. And you have ignored me. Because you're not really willing to listen. You just wanna believe that sound waves can cure cancer no matter what, and you'll ignore anything! Talking to you is just like arguing with a door!
|
On April 08 2011 23:28 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved. I find that hard to believe.
Go read up on it... It is a common fact that sailors were the first people to know that the Earth was not flat because when they saw a ship aproaching them they always saw the mast first and then the rest of the ship later, as if it were rising from somewhere, but that was just because of the curve of the Earth. Once they knew this, people looked into it and it became common knowledge to people with access to education. The only people who believed that the Earth was flat were the poor, who did not have schooling.
|
|
|
There's no cure for cancer yet because it's an incredibly complex thing to cure, not because the government doesn't want to cure it.
|
On April 08 2011 23:25 Jombozeus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:01 TadH wrote:
God damn trolls. Go away.
I found the article very interesting and the concept behind it isn't really so far fetched. Given the article itself may be poorly written and have a few holes in it, but the underlying theme could be true.
Thanks for posting. Did your liberal art class teach you that? Or are you a biologist? How does one deem how far fetched something it with absolutely no background? Heres something I found on the internet: Show nested quote +Energy can be created by altering the magnetic field strength of individual protons, because when protons are given an extra positive neutrino through positive beta decay of a radioactive substance, the extra strength of the charge carried by the protons will now be stronger than that of the electrons, and thus the magnetic pull will pull the electrons onto the nucleus where the two will cancel out into a neutron. Since we know that the mass of a proton + the mass of an electron is higher than that of a neutron, some energy must be created (remember we can relate mass to energy through E = MC^2).
This means, by altering the magnetic field of an extremely radioactive material, energy will be created in the forms of kinetic energy, which we all know will equal faster movement and thus be higher temperature. This can be used to heat steam and create electrical energy through moving a turbine (identical to that of a coal plant).
The reason why we do not use this technology is because of the vast benefits of governments hiding this technology. With radioactive substances (it doesn't have to be fission material, so it can be any radioactive substance even with a long half-life that is not dangerous) such as Rubidium 151, we can create "free" energy at little to no upkeep cost (only that of keeping the magnetic field running). Do you believe this one may be true too, Archangel, and all those supporting the cancer theory?
The fact that resonating sound waves can destroy things (like the wineglass) is what I was referring to.
And at least the OP posted a source, for all I know you wrote that.
Go troll somewhere else.
|
On April 08 2011 23:32 ZaaaaaM wrote:
There wont be a cure for cancer, simply because there is too much economics behind it. Just like there will be no car running on water. Atleast not in the nearest future.
Lol there are cars that run on water... The faster car running on water was clocked at 170mph, they use a system that heats a few quarts of water to create steam and then that runs the engive. From there on an aditional amount of water is heated to replace the evaprated water. It isn't extremely efficient, but obviously it can work.
On April 08 2011 23:32 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2011 23:29 -Archangel- wrote:On April 08 2011 23:26 VIB wrote:On April 08 2011 23:22 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:36 wherebugsgo wrote:On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote:On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote:On April 08 2011 22:06 oni_link wrote:On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote:
Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff.. Replace the OP with a conjecture that the Earth is flat. Everything you said applies the same, but would you seriously consider such a proposal, with no scientific credence, just because it's a "different" way of looking at things? Come on, can you seriously be that naïve? No that is not even close to being the same... We disproved the notion of the Earth being flat years ago... And educated people along with sailors never believed that the Earth was flat in the first place. As far as I know there is no additional investigation into his methods so it was never disproved. Wrong, men understand waves are and how resonance works for centuries as well. Any educated people should know that saying you can cure cancer with it makes as much sense as saying you can cure poverty by punching a wall. His methods have already been disproved. You're only insisting in it because you're part of the laymen audience that article targets. Who has disproven it? Have any links on scientific research that has tried to duplicate his work, failed and explained why it cannot work? Yes I have, I have told you before. And you have ignored me. Because you're not really willing to listen. You just wanna believe that sound waves can cure cancer no matter what, and you'll ignore anything! Talking to you is just like arguing with a door!
How about you just post a link or something instead of trying to argue...
|
I had a great laugh, thanks!
|
What sound waves?
You do not need sound waves.
Why is everyone so obsessed with sound waves. They are not the only one with frequency.
Anyways, I have updated the OP. I have posted another link to science without conspiracy as the original link is too conspiracy heavy. I should have read it better and not posted it in the first place, it not a good article (the one I read originally was made much better but I could not find that one so posted this one).
Also the title was a bit to sensationalist and has led to this discussion that was not intended. I wanted to hear about the possible science behind this all, not talk about H1N1, 9/11 or governments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
