EPTMan lived off only meditation for 70 years - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Ideas
United States8141 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On May 04 2010 19:51 Squeegy wrote: It's simply not possible. Anyone who understands human biology knows this. fuck, I don't even think its physically possible in accordance to the laws of thermodynamics :/ | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 05 2010 09:34 Half wrote: fuck, I don't even think its physically possible in accordance to the laws of thermodynamics :/ There are organisms that eat rocks and get energy from hydrothermal vents, and then there are plants that eat rocks (and air) and get energy from the sun. So it's possible thermodynamically as long as you have some kind of energy source. Life as we know it requires Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Sulfur, and Oxygen. Organisms also require metals to change the oxidation states of the above non-metals. It's not thermodynamics that prevents organisms from growing in the presence of nothing but air and sunshine, it's the requirement for stuff like metals and sulfur that you have to get from eating things. | ||
|
condoriano
United States826 Posts
On May 04 2010 19:17 Orome wrote: 3 weeks, although impressive, is a bit short if he wants to prove his 70 years story. :p I don't think he wants to prove anything. I've read about this phenomena a long time ago, he isn't the only Indian who's claimed this. They usually don't agree to be observed so it was considered a myth. My father went 40 days with no food, just water and in a year he did 7 or 9 days without anything. Many people has done 14 (i think?) days without food or water voluntarily. Most do this to treat many diseases (often labeled incurable by "official medicine"), especially digestion problems and ulcers etc. I'm pretty sure there are specialized hospitals that will observe and guide people undergoing this. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On May 05 2010 09:43 Biochemist wrote: There are organisms that eat rocks and get energy from hydrothermal vents, and then there are plants that eat rocks (and air) and get energy from the sun. So it's possible thermodynamically as long as you have some kind of energy source. Life as we know it requires Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen, Sulfur, and Oxygen. Organisms also require metals to change the oxidation states of the above non-metals. It's not thermodynamics that prevents organisms from growing in the presence of nothing but air and sunshine, it's the requirement for stuff like metals and sulfur that you have to get from eating things. Human beings don't have the nessicary faculties to synthesize the nessicary elements for all the reactions in our body, so for that guy to live off "meditation" whatever that means, probably violates the law of conservation of energy. I get what your saying, it isn't purely thermodynamics, obviously something can just exist for 70 years, I mean in relationship to human beings. | ||
|
condoriano
United States826 Posts
On May 04 2010 19:36 ShadeR wrote: lolol 70 years. you cant survive without water for a week in the best of conditions Xd Like I said above, even my father did. And many people gone 14 days with no food or water. On May 04 2010 22:18 creepcolony wrote: Is there any living beeing on the planet that can survive without any water ? I dont think so. So why should we be able to do that ? No way this is true. In theory he can just absorb water through his skin, what's so impossible about it? If he was barely moving living in one spot meditating there is a chance he gets just enough energy from sun and air, which has to be the explanation. On May 04 2010 22:36 PJA wrote: How can you actually believe the words that you are saying? All of the things people have been proven to be able to do through meditation are at least reasonable. It's mostly just being able to control heart rate/blood pressure/state of mind/etc. None of it has ever done anything like allow us to obtain nutrients in ways that we cannot do. How exactly is meditation going to cause us to get nutrition from sunlight? Our body has absolutely no mechanism for turning sunlight into every essential nutrient. This is just blatantly retarded, and basic physics shows us that it's not possible to survive without taking in a certain number of calories. Do I think that through meditation we can control metabolism and slow down many bodily functions and thus decrease our need for food? Yes, that's possible, but that's completely different than what this man claims to be doing. It's funny people completely stopped their heart from beating while meditating but they can't influence their metabolism. This is a very thin argument, you either believe none or at least accept the possibility of both. On May 04 2010 23:12 Sioux wrote: Doesn't seem so outrageous to me. I've read about breatharians before, there's a lot about the human body that remains a mystery. Did you know we don't know shit? All that stuff about the lock and key methods of hormones and enzymes may be b.s According to a book called Energy Medicine a scientific approach there i evidence that things like adrenaline, which cause a change in your body in seconds does not use the lock and key method wich counts on probability which takes forever but instead has an energy signature that signals all cells it comes near. Wish i could state study but cant find book. Also Matter is just energy. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. E=mc2. So food is just condensed energy. There is electromagnetic energy emerging from the earth at all times, as well as coming from the sun. If you could harness enough of it perhaps our body can use it to make solids such as water, protein etc. Not saying i know for sure, but i do know that we don't know shit. =) Very nice post, also I've read some works on human body energy consumption, one of the points is that each human being can produce a certain amount of energy during it's lifetime, every food intake requires energy to digest it. The more you eat (or rather the higher your calorie intake is) the lesser your life expectancy will be. This is somewhat supported by vegetarians and people that fast living up to 10 years longer on average. This thread is rather big, many interesting responses. Props to everyone who believes or at least allows that possibility. Human body is a miracle, science can't even come close to understanding how and why many things work. | ||
|
LG)Sabbath
Argentina3024 Posts
other than that, i dont know jack about this so im just gonna ask, isnt the body supposed to absorb some water from air humidity? ps. might be slightly related, there was some study that showed that eating less calories actually increases your life expectancy up to a point, as in it was shown that animals taking less calories than they needed (fasting a bit) lived noticeably longer http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/10/science/10aging.html granted this isn't "not eating"... just throwing some food for thought out there, no pun intended  | ||
|
condoriano
United States826 Posts
On May 05 2010 10:13 LG)Sabbath wrote: it might be in the scientist's interest to show that the man is right (say, if the lead scientist is religious or something), so even if 30 days pass, i'd still wait for some more tests from different scientists, ie. peer review other than that, i dont know jack about this so im just gonna ask, isnt the body supposed to absorb some water from air humidity? He can also go into the water, it doesn't say anywhere he doesn't bathe. | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 05 2010 10:13 LG)Sabbath wrote: it might be in the scientist's interest to show that the man is right (say, if the lead scientist is religious or something), so even if 30 days pass, i'd still wait for some more tests from different scientists, ie. peer review other than that, i dont know jack about this so im just gonna ask, isnt the body supposed to absorb some water from air humidity? Short answer, no. When you open the floodgates to a dam, why does the water always go the same direction? | ||
|
condoriano
United States826 Posts
On May 04 2010 23:46 endy wrote: I can't believe scientists can even accept to monitor this guy for 3 weeks. Seriously, you don't need to be a doctor to know this is plain bullshit  3 weeks is not enough. 3 weeks can absolutely be done by more people than you think. You don't know anything about fasting. If this guy really agreed to be monitored to provide this information to everyone else, he should be tested for 3 months. That would be incredible (and I'm certain he will do 3 weeks no problem) On May 05 2010 00:07 Hawk wrote: anyone who is stupid enough to believe this shit is an idiot, and should be known as such Btw you are an idiot from the many posts you've made that I had a chance to read. Not because you posted in this thread. An opinion of an idiot should be regarded as such. On May 05 2010 10:18 Biochemist wrote: Short answer, no. When you open the floodgates to a dam, why does the water always go the same direction? You just said we don't absorb water from the air/surroundings. And it's actually "science". Pretty sad. | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 05 2010 10:13 condoriano wrote: Like I said above, even my father did. And many people gone 14 days with no food or water. In theory he can just absorb water through his skin, what's so impossible about it? If he was barely moving living in one spot meditating there is a chance he gets just enough energy from sun and air, which has to be the explanation. It's funny people completely stopped their heart from beating while meditating but they can't influence their metabolism. This is a very thin argument, you either believe none or at least accept the possibility of both. Very nice post, also I've read some works on human body energy consumption, one of the points is that each human being can produce a certain amount of energy during it's lifetime, every food intake requires energy to digest it. The more you eat (or rather the higher your calorie intake is) the lesser your life expectancy will be. This is somewhat supported by vegetarians and people that fast living up to 10 years longer on average. This thread is rather big, many interesting responses. Props to everyone who believes or at least allows that possibility. Human body is a miracle, science can't even come close to understanding how and why many things work. I've read some works that talk about how microwave ovens heat food up by making the right kind of noise. The sound waves hit the food and make it heat up. This is supported by the fact that when I take food outside at noon and put it on a shiny metal table and yell at it, it gets warmer. + Show Spoiler + correlation != causation and whatnot, especially when one of the factors that you're correlating is completely hypothetical | ||
flamewheel
FREEAGLELAND26781 Posts
Sadistx is pretty cool. | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On May 05 2010 10:18 Biochemist wrote: Short answer, no. When you open the floodgates to a dam, why does the water always go the same direction? That's not really a good analogy... the reason we don't absorb water, or at least water in any sufficient quantities for survival through the air, is that our skin lacks the ability to absorb water efficiently but our digestive tract does. Even if you were able to efficiently absorb water through the skin it would face the immense task of distributing the water throughout your body. Most organisms that distribute their water and nutrients by diffusion are only a few cells deep... any more than that and it's so inefficient that it becomes impossible. That's actually one of the main arguments against this case... even if he were somehow able to convert the light into energy... the surface area that this light is available to is miniscule compared to the amount of cells that it needs to get to. A plant has massive surface area and highly developed systems in place to cope with this. We unfortunately do not... | ||
|
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
On May 05 2010 09:14 Biochemist wrote: Plants have the ability to stick CO2 onto sugars (using Ru5P carboxylase, the most expressed protein in nature if I recall correctly). We don't have it. Neither does the Yogi. CO2 is created in cellular respiration when you break down fats and sugars. So you would use that CO2 as a source to... make fats and sugars? That's like using the gas vapor that comes out of your tailpipe to turn your car into a perpetual motion machine. I don't believe that a guy can live 70+ years w/o nutrients either. It goes against everything we've learned...even the tiniest bacteria needs to do eat and drink. The only plausible way I see it is that he's either got a mutalistic relationship going on with something in him that provides nutrients for him, recycling waste products to recreate nutrients, or developing the ability to simply absorb nutrients through his skin. All of these possibilities are highly unlikely; i'm just throwing out wacked out reasons at this point. I gotta admit the recycling nutrients shit was prolly the stupidest outta them all though... | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 05 2010 10:20 condoriano wrote: 3 weeks is not enough. 3 weeks can absolutely be done by more people than you think. You don't know anything about fasting. If this guy really agreed to be monitored to provide this information to everyone else, he should be tested for 3 months. That would be incredible (and I'm certain he will do 3 weeks no problem) Btw you are an idiot from the many posts you've made that I had a chance to read. Not because you posted in this thread. An opinion of an idiot should be regarded as such. You just said we don't absorb water from the air/surroundings. And it's actually "science". Pretty sad. Perhaps I should say that the rate at which water leaves the body is much faster than the rate at which water enters the body (through the skin). Is that better? | ||
|
Tsagacity
United States2124 Posts
On May 05 2010 10:20 condoriano wrote: 3 weeks without food isn't hard, but 3 weeks without water? ...3 weeks is not enough. 3 weeks can absolutely be done by more people than you think. You don't know anything about fasting. If this guy really agreed to be monitored to provide this information to everyone else, he should be tested for 3 months. That would be incredible (and I'm certain he will do 3 weeks no problem) Btw you are an idiot from the many posts you've made that I had a chance to read. Not because you posted in this thread. An opinion of an idiot should be regarded as such. You just said we don't absorb water from the air/surroundings. And it's actually "science". Pretty sad. | ||
|
condoriano
United States826 Posts
On May 05 2010 10:26 Tsagacity wrote: 3 weeks without food isn't hard, but 3 weeks without water? ... I am 100% certain that 14 days with no food no water was done multiple times before, should look it up online. And my father did at least 7 days (could be 9) while I was basically observing it. So in my opinion 3 weeks opposed to 2 can be achieved by someone who trained himself throughout his life. But even the 3 week term will give a lot of thought to many stuck up people who think that a human can only survive for 3 days without water lol. | ||
|
meeple
Canada10211 Posts
On May 05 2010 10:27 condoriano wrote: Biochemist are you in college with a name like this? because you are wrong about skin not absorbing moisture, you were flat out wrong haha. I think he clarified the statement... and in fact he never said we don't absorb water through our skin... albeit he did make an analogy that wasn't so fitting | ||
|
condoriano
United States826 Posts
On May 05 2010 10:29 meeple wrote: I think he clarified the statement... and in fact he never said we don't absorb water through our skin... albeit he did make an analogy that wasn't so fitting Well if we open the dam.. Was a fail analogy i guess.. and if it does get absorbed, then what was the argument? It is too "little"? That's the whole point, what if he needs so little that absorbing through skin is enough? | ||
|
Biochemist
United States1008 Posts
On May 05 2010 10:38 condoriano wrote: Well if we open the dam.. Was a fail analogy i guess.. and if it does get absorbed, then what was the argument? It is too "little"? That's the whole point, what if he needs so little that absorbing through skin is enough? The argument is that more gets lost than gets absorbed. | ||
| ||
