DNA molecule teleports itself into test tube by piratenews

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

DNA molecule teleports itself into test tube

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Sunday, January 30, 2011 08:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4265
PAGE 2 of 2

Tuesday, January 25, 2011 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
...there's dozens of better explanations than the one given, which Byte has gone over already.

These are the explanations Byte offered:

1. Fraud
2. Electrophoresis in contaminated test tubes

That's only two. If you are saying dozens of better and more parsimonious explanations exist for the empirical results, I am very much interested in hearing the rest of them.

Thank you.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:03 AM

My guess would be contamination of any component would be enough. Not even a bacteria or DNA is needed a random bit of RNA would do, and be very difficult to detect.

I don't suspect it's a fraud, I suspect the guy deeply wants to believe, and so wasn't skeptical enough on his own data.

It's just too highly unlikely an event for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 25, 2011 6:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
These are the explanations Byte offered:

1. Fraud
2. Electrophoresis in contaminated test tubes

That's only two. If you are saying dozens of better and more parsimonious explanations exist for the empirical results, I am very much interested in hearing the rest of them.

Thank you.

Well, I did mean to write "some of which byte has gone over all ready", I noticed my mistake but, didn't have time to change it earlier.

For my money, the explanation has more than a little touch of the homoeopathy "water has memory" thing, which beyond the fact that, scientifically, homoeopathy is pretty much bunk already; I don't want to live in a world where water can remember what it's had in it, Dolphins hump in water you know.

But, scientifically, the burden of proof, or disproof, is not on me. Taking these results at face value is far less scientific than dismissing them, especially when there seems to be little to know discussion of the actual physical mechanism at work behind his hypothesis.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 25, 2011 7:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
But, scientifically, the burden of proof, or disproof, is not on me.

To be clear, what you are saying is, "The author does not present sufficient evidence to convince me of a cause and effect relationship." (I agree with this statement, btw.)

When you said there were "dozens of better explanations," you did not mean that literally. It was figurative hyperbole for how incredulous you are.

So the dozens of better explanations, they don't exist.

Is that correct?

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 25, 2011 11:35 AM

Quote:
"The author does not present sufficient evidence to convince me of a cause and effect relationship."

Yes, this is what I should have said in the first place. Sorry about that. Citizen says things better than I can.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
To be clear, what you are saying is, "The author does not present sufficient evidence to convince me of a cause and effect relationship." (I agree with this statement, btw.)

Well it is enough. To be frank the author doesn't present enough evidence to convince me that his explanation is even sane.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
When you said there were "dozens of better explanations," you did not mean that literally. It was figurative hyperbole for how incredulous you are.

So the dozens of better explanations, they don't exist.

Is that correct?

Hmm, my trapo metre sees something here :). Anyway, perhaps, to some extent, though I do think there are dozens of potential explanations, but I'm neither enough invested in this discussion, nor really taking it seriously enough to go to the trouble of enumerating them (no offence meant).

But yes, without a lot more supporting evidence and replication, I'm very incredulous of this, and I do think that you'd be able to drag up at least a dozen alternate explanations, not because there's necessarily dozens of scientifically rigorous explanations, but because there's dozens more scientifically rigorous than the one presented, which is a much higher limbo bar to shuffle beneath.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Anyway, perhaps, to some extent, though I do think there are dozens of potential explanations, but I'm neither enough invested in this discussion, nor really taking it seriously enough to go to the trouble of enumerating them (no offence meant).

So you insist the dozens of explanations exist, but you don't care enough about the argument to take the time to tell me.

Fair enough.

But until I see what these dozens of explanations are, I am going to assume you are making an empty claim.

On an assertion YOU are making, the burden of proof is on YOU, isn't it?

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 6:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
But until I see what these dozens of explanations are, I am going to assume you are making an empty claim.

Much as I’m going to assume that your determination to focus on irrelevancies is little more than a sophistic tactic :p

Quote:

On an assertion YOU are making, the burden of proof is on YOU, isn't it?

Not when the calls to back up alleged claim are off topic and are mostly just a fairly transparent attempt to divert attention from the fact that the actual discussion ended some posts back, nor when the actual salient point of what I said is being neatly pushed to one side, no.

If I provide you with a list of alternatives, we both know what you’re going to do with it; you’re going to pick over each one and demand, in a roundabout way, I start presenting evidence for them. You will be, in fact pushing the burden of proof from where it belongs, on to my shoulders. I can see it coming, and I don’t want to play, sorry.

The discussion of this thread ended when you accepted that the paper proves nothing, your insistence on focusing on irrelevancies, smacks only of desperation.

The "research" discussed here is pseudo science quackery, get over it; or not, the choice is yours. As I've already noted I don't care, and this discussion is already long over.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
The "research" discussed here is pseudo science quackery,...

This assertion is completely unsubstantiated.

It is one thing to criticize someone's methodology and presentation of evidence, to present alternative explanations and weigh them thoughtfully against the empirical data. That is the scientific thing to do. I stand behind this process 100%.

It is another to accuse people of fraud and quackery, willy nilly, without evidence of such, simply based on personal bias of what is possible and not possible, based on the data not fitting within one's preconceptions and the existing biochemical paradigm. I criticized these accusations from Byte, and I am doing it with you. This type of attack is NOT scientific, but religious. I reject this process 100%.

Yes, the argument about the conclusions of this paper was long over. But if you are going to make prejudicial and baseless attacks on experimental research, I am going to say something.

There, I said something.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:40 AM

Quote:
I criticized these accusations from Byte, and I am doing it with you. This type of attack is NOT scientific, but religious.

Whoa, huh? My position was always Occam's razor. There's several alternative explanations for the guy's conclusion, and his data by no means substantiates or justifies his conclusion. It's a severe logical leap.

The experiment itself suffers from a serious case of confirmation bias not just in it's conclusion but in the very design, and even if someone DID replicate the experiment, it would essentially be meaningless, because the given conclusion does not necessarily follow the results. He could as much say that the amplified DNA is the product of spontaneous generation or abiogenesis as he could claim the DNA based it's template on NOTHING, but the fact is in order to PCR he still had to have DNA in there all along and I don't care HOW finely he filtered the water.

I get that you're frustrated, but why are you pulling ME back in?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I get that you're frustrated, but why are you pulling ME back in?

Not pulling you back in. Summarizing an earlier interchange between you and me (about the accusations of fraud).

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:23 PM

Calling me out on my accusations of fraud is fair, I'll give you that. I have no way to prove that he merely messed up some data and invented a paper to justify it.

In fact, considering DT's inquiries into the matter, it seems as though the guy actually has been working on validating this pet theory for a while.

Which is still not scientific... But not fraudulent.

Where I take issue now is you calling my rejection of his experiment "religious." The experiment is deeply flawed and even you've admitted to that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Where I take issue now is you calling my rejection of his experiment "religious."

What I actually said was: "This type of attack [accusation of fraud or quackery] is NOT scientific, but religious."

In other words, I'm saying that accusing someone of fraud without evidence is a religious attack, not a scientific one.

But you withdrew that accusation. So...you know, no problem.

I only mentioned it (and now I am sorry I did) to say, "When Byte did it, I said something. Now Cit is doing it, I'm saying something too."

I have no problems with your criticism of his experimental methods. I enjoyed reading and considering them. I may not agree with those criticisms, and we can continue to argue about how you can have DNA smaller than 20 nm, or inconsistent DNA contamination, etc. But I think that that horse has been beat to death.

Quote:
The experiment is deeply flawed and even you've admitted to that.

I believe the experiment is pretty good for a pilot study, and the *paper* is deeply flawed. There is a difference. I also believe the author did not present sufficient evidence to determine a causal relationship; the conclusions are categorically premature and not supported by the available data.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 12:59 PM

Quote:
In other words, I'm saying that accusing someone of fraud without evidence is a religious attack, not a scientific one.

Er... If it weren't for finding out this was the guy's pet theory and he probably actually believes it, that would be my best guess still. We haven't proven that it WASN'T fraud yet either.

For it to be religious, I'd have to have some objection to his work beyond the fact I think this particular experiment is based on contaminated samples.

But yes, I've stopped attacking the guy and mocking him for his experiment and claims, your argument to me convinced me that I was being being a jerk. If it's bad science, then that will show itself soon. If it's not... I can't even imagine a situation where it WON'T be, but there may be a small but non-zero chance it could be possible. Maybe.

As for your point about DNA, if some of the bacterial cells were replicating their plasmids at the time of DNA extraction (and therefore not bound in the traditional plasmid arrangement), they would be an order of magnitude smaller than a 20 nm filter. DNA is 22 to 36 angstroms wide (2.2 to 2.6 nanometers), and one nucleotide unit is 3.3 Å (0.33 nm) long.

In my defense, I came up with the electrophoresis explanation 1) without looking up the size of DNA, 2) taking the word of the paper that 20 nm would be sufficient filter, and 3) my understanding was they had somehow measured the water for purity before they started and that 16 hours later did PCR and found amplified DNA.

Quote:
I believe the experiment is pretty good for a pilot study, and the *paper* is deeply flawed. There is a difference. I also believe the author did not present sufficient evidence to determine a causal relationship; the conclusions are categorically premature and not supported by the available data.

Fair enough and definitely agreed on the last part.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
This type of attack is NOT scientific, but religious.

Look if someone is proposing something that actually breaks existent laws of physics, or otherwise is fantastical and doing it with a wishy-washy paper that doesn't support word one of their conclusions, you're damn right I'm going to call it pseudo-science quackery, because that's what it damn well is.

Twisting about and trying to claim that's a religious objection is at best asinine, at worst a gross misunderstanding, or perhaps rather misapplication of the scientific method. It is, in short, his responcibility to prove that it's not quakery, by providing a theory for the physical mechanism at work, and enough evidence to support it, the author has failed to do that, so it's quakery, until such time as he does better. Though id' advise against anyone holding their breath on that last part. Again we're getting back to you demanding that people disprove the claim; not that it's authors prove it.

Science == Skepticism.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
It is, in short, his responcibility to prove that it's not quakery, by providing a theory for the physical mechanism at work,

That is not how science works. Anyone can do an experiment and record observations before understanding WHY or providing a theory for the mechanism.

I have to say something because you are representing a view of scientific process that differs very much from the one I know. For the record, not everyone believes science works the way you think.

Quote:
Again we're getting back to you demanding that people disprove the claim;

We have already agreed the claim has not been proven. We have no argument about that. *You* don't need to disprove it.

I am trying to underscore a distinction between scientific skepticism (critiques on methodology, statistics, instrumentation, confounders, etc) and a leap to calling names. You are justifying name-calling as "scientific skepticism." As a big fan of scientific skepticism, I find that offensive.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 12:53 PM

I didn't throw any name calling about. I didn't call him a quack, I said this paper was quackery, which is about the same level of discourse you've been involved in (eg. calling my objections nothing more than "religious").

Still, the fact remains if one wants to present a THEORY, one has to provide a physical mechanism for that. He's not simply outlying an observed effect, he's presenting a THEORY to describe it as well, but singularly fails to express the actual operation behind it.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 12:54 PM

Citizen's "quackery" and my "fraud" are basically "wait, this experiment doesn't even make sense, why would he publish a paper about this?"

They were speculative comments that are separate from our respective analysis of the experiment.

If you can't make a logical counter argument or your argument is ONLY name calling, that is not scientific, and not skepticism. But otherwise you can actually say something abusive and still have a valid logical argument.

From wikipedia:

Quote:
Gratuitous verbal abuse or "name-calling" itself is not an ad hominem or a logical fallacy.

Here's the difference.

"Why should we believe this guy's results? He's a fraud" - fallacy

"This experiment makes no sense. Did he publish this paper just to excuse bad data?" - not a fallacy

"Why should we believe this guy's results? He's a quack" - fallacy

"This experiment makes no sense. Oh, he was just trying to prove a pet theory? Then this experiment is quackery." - not a fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 12:59 PM

Additional note:

"This guy has credentials, see, he's gotten the nobel prize before, so he knows what he's doing (knows things you don't)." - fallacy

"Why should we believe this guy's results just because he got a nobel prize?" - not a fallacy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
He's not simply outlying an observed effect, he's presenting a THEORY to describe it as well,...

I didn't see where he was advancing a theory.

He provided an possible explanation for his observations. That happens after a pilot study. You advance hypotheses for further research.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
They were speculative comments that are separate from our respective analysis of the experiment.

Yours were, I'll grant that. Cause you actually had an analysis of the experiment. Cit, on the other hand, just called names, I mean speculated, with no analysis at all. When pressed for actual analyses, he declined, saying he didn't want to invest that much time and effort. So I read that as, he just wanted to call names, I mean, speculate.

Quote:
But otherwise you can actually say something abusive and still have a valid logical argument.

LOL. Fair enough.

For the record, my objection was not about logical fallacies. It was about distinguishing scientific skepticism from "religious" objections (objections rooted in attachments to certain worldviews).

I think there is a difference. Just me.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 1:28 PM

Quote:
Cit, on the other hand, just called names, I mean speculated, with no analysis at all.

Well, he called out my analysis instead.

I'm willing to call it borderline, but I'm also willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Quote:
objections rooted in attachments to certain worldviews

Sure. And I will admit, before I even wondered if the paper was fraudulent, that my response to this thread title was a rather knee jerk "Whaaaaaaat?"

That did undoubtedly colour most of my reaction to the thread and the experiment described. The problem is that it didn't start to make more sense as I kept reading.

If something makes sense to me, it can overcome my what response. If it doesn't make sense, I start to wonder where it went wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:25 PM

Quote:
I didn't see where he was advancing a theory.

CTS,

Not jumping into the line of fire here, but Montagnier has advanced this EMF theory before, the study doesn't exist in a vacuum.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/0557v31188m3766x

He's been on this for a while, he was actually on it before he joined the initial HIV team. It's his pet theory, and there may be something to it, or may not be, but he has yet to substantiate a solid explanation of how this is to happen in the real world, which is filled with a near infinite quantity of random signals.

Perhaps solid empirical evidence would back up such an idea. Which is not to say that he made up these results, but just that he so badly wanted to see them that was not skeptical enough.

ETA: I'll let the black duck take the counterpoint on Luc Montagnier's DNA theory:

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/10/why-i-am-nominating-luc-montag
nier-for.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Cit, on the other hand, just called names,

You keep making this claim, yet you've still not managed to show where I called anyone any names.

Perhaps you can't live up to your own standards?

For someone who claims not to be personally invested in this topic, you do seem to take it rather, personally, to the point of a witch hunt no less.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 2:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Not jumping into the line of fire here, but Montagnier has advanced this EMF theory...

Maybe it's me, but I don't call speculation "theory." Theory, to me, is a very specific scientific term that means something else entirely.

Yes, I am aware that he has advanced EMF speculations before. I said in my first post on this thread that as a homeopathy consumer, I have followed Montagnier's research on this for quite some time. His instrument was actually co-invented by Bruno Robert, who worked on this digital signal technology with Jacques Benveniste, who published a paper in Nature about homeopathic dilutions as well. So yes, all these dudes have been pursuing this line of inquiry for a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste

Most scientists follow a very specialized path of research for most of their lives. That is how they accumulate expertise. You want to call it a "pet theory," that is fine. But I really don't see how "pet theory" is any different from a scientist pursuing any other specialty.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:57 PM

CTS,

Sorry, yes, speculation. I forget that you're probably more familiar with EMF studies than I am. I should have said, he's been on EMF speculation for a while, and has posited this particular one for several years now. It would be convenient for him if this were a lucky but very unlikely event, I don't buy that its at all likely, I suspect he deluded himself this time.

You're right that most people stick to one path, this just increases their vested interest in that path.

I didn't know Benveniste was on the water thing. I don't buy it, as you know, it's the math of the thing. there are about 10 to the 25th water molecules in a glass of water, each with its own signature, nano-emf, electrical charge etc, most of which is determined by cohesion and internal quantum phenomena. Sure, you can charge the entire class of water, particularly any salts dissolved within it, but it's still going to be a very chaotic system. Not exactly tailor made for signal transmission.

It's not just the dilution of an incredibly weak signal over empty space, but in an environment of tremendous chaotic interference. If we were still talking nm, it would be something that could be considered, but, you know, we've been through this one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:35 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Sky,

Just visiting this thread again.

What was the apparatus to magnetize the water?

Were both magnetic coils connected to the same power circuit and/or supply?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What was the apparatus to magnetize the water?

"A copper solenoid is placed around them [2 test tubes] and receives a low intensity electric current oscillating at 7 Hz, produced by an external generator."

This copper coil is encased in a Mu-metal shield to block outside EMFs.

Then, "[t]he produced magnetic field is maintained for 18 hours at
room temperature. EMS are then recorded from each tube."

Quote:
Were both magnetic coils connected to the same power circuit and/or supply?

It was one magnetic coil, and it was connected to the same power supply.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:15 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

So a single coil was placed around both tubes simultaneously, and they were exposed concurrently?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Still, the fact remains if one wants to present a THEORY, one has to provide a physical mechanism for that. He's not simply outlying an observed effect, he's presenting a THEORY to describe it as well, but singularly fails to express the actual operation behind it.
CTS:
I didn't see where he was advancing a theory.

I am correcting myself, with apologies. He DID advance a "theory," from page 5 to page 9.

He says:

Quote:
We will try to interpret the above experimental results in the framework of a recently proposed theory of liquid water based on Quantum Field Theory (QFT)

He then goes on for 3 pages to describe a possible physical mechanism to explain these findings.

Now I felt it was only a hypothesis, so did not pay attention to his use of the word "theory." I think he should have been more cautious, and not used the word "theory" to describe his speculations. But that's me.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
So a single coil was placed around both tubes simultaneously, and they were exposed concurrently?

Yes. And both tubes and the coil were inside a shield.

Here is the paper. There is a picture at the top of page 4.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.5166v1.pdf

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:29 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Why doesn't the information go the other way?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Why doesn't the information go the other way?

Good question. I don't know.

My guess is, because there is no information in the second tube (pure water with no EM signal). Or maybe, the information transfer is directional.

This would be a very good control to put in next time.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 27, 2011 7:52 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I feel that what we call 'no information' is still information.

This experiment begs for so many variations that I can't believe none of them were tried before publication.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 2:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

He says:
Quote:
We will try to interpret the above experimental results in the framework of a recently proposed theory of liquid water based on Quantum Field Theory (QFT)

He then goes on for 3 pages to describe a possible physical mechanism to explain these findings.

Now I felt it was only a hypothesis, so did not pay attention to his use of the word "theory." I think he should have been more cautious, and not used the word "theory" to describe his speculations. But that's me.

He used the word theory in a scientific paper, it would seem reasonable to conclude he's using the word theory in it's scientific sense, no?

Anyway, he provides, from what I see, a mechanism for how the "DNA Data" is transferred to the pure water. Personally I find the mechanism somewhat unlikely, and if it worked it would seem to indicate that any contamination within or without the tubes would effect the result. Nor is there much of an explanation for how this data is transferred coherently, and then "stored" in the pure water in a useful manner. I can maybe accept that information is transferred, but that it is consistently transferred in a coherent and intact manner, seemingly through random chance?

What he doesn't seem to do, is explain how this data "imposed" onto the pure water sample can produce a PCR readable effect. That would seem to be a rather large gaping hole, unless you can point me to the relevant paragraph I may have missed, even if we take the information transfer system at face value.

--------------------------------------------------

If you play a Microsoft CD backwards you can hear demonic voices. The scary part is that if you play it forwards it installs Windows.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 4:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
This experiment begs for so many variations that I can't believe none of them were tried before publication.

To be fair, he did try it with several variations and controls.

He tried it with pure water in both test tubes (no DNA in the first one).
He tried it with a different frequency magnetic field.
He tried it for different lengths of time.
He tried it with the generator turned on, but no coil.
He tried it with the coil in place, but the generator off.

Yes, I agree there are more controls he could have put in, such as varying the positions of the 2 test tubes, or putting in more than 2 test tubes.

Are there any others you would like to recommend to the author? :)

That is why something like this is considered to be only a pilot study, an exploratory first step. Certainly so much more research needs to be done before concluding anything.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 4:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
He used the word theory in a scientific paper, it would seem reasonable to conclude he's using the word theory in it's scientific sense, no?

There is no doubt he is using "theory" in the scientific sense. I was saying I disagree with the use of that word, so the word "theory" did not register--the whole section was a "hypothesis" in my mind. That is how I made the mistake of saying he didn't advance a theory. Classic confirmation bias, which I corrected and apologized for when I caught it.

Quote:
I can maybe accept that information is transferred, but that it is consistently transferred in a coherent and intact manner, seemingly through random chance?

I agree his hypothesis is detailed in some areas, and very vague in others. There is a lot that we don't know about this process, if it even exists. Hopefully further research down the road will illuminate the details of any possible mechanism, or show the confounders that explain the results. Hopefully, further research is done by someone else as well as him. I can't see this research gaining any credibility at all unless he shares that technology with others and have them poke holes in it. And soon.

Quote:
What he doesn't seem to do, is explain how this data "imposed" onto the pure water sample can produce a PCR readable effect. That would seem to be a rather large gaping hole, unless you can point me to the relevant paragraph I may have missed, even if we take the information transfer system at face value.

He doesn't say very much about it.

1. "The produced magnetic field is maintained for 18 hours at room temperature. EMS are then recorded from each tube. Now also the tube containing water emits EMS, at the dilutions corresponding to those positive for EMS in the original DNA tube." (page 5, bottom)

2. "...all the ingredients to synthesize the DNA by polymerase chain reaction (nucleotides, primers, polymerase) were added to the tube of signalized water. The amplification was performed under classical conditions (35 cycles) in a thermocycler. The DNA produced was then submitted to electrophoresis in an agarose gel. The result was that a DNA band of the expected size of the original LTR fragment was detected. It was further verified that this DNA had a sequence identical or close to identical to the original DNA sequence of the LTR. In fact, it was 98 % identical (2 nucleotide difference) out of 104. This experiment was found to be highly reproducible (12 out of 12) and was also repeated with another DNA sequence from a bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi, the agent of Lyme disease." (page 6. 2nd paragraph)

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 28, 2011 5:42 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"He tried it with a different frequency magnetic field."

Hello,

This is another variable I consider significant. I am curious as to how he came to his 7 Hz decision.

The paper says that frequencies below 7 Hz were ineffective, but what about higher frequencies?

I note that the experiment relies on shielding specific to low frequency sources. So, he knew he would be restricting himself to low frequencies right off. Why? And why use shielding that is optimized for low-frequencies?

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 5:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I am curious as to how he came to his 7 Hz decision.

He explains it in the paper on pages 8 and 9. It has something to do with Schumann resonances.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Schumann_resonances

I don't understand it myself. I'm studying this hypothesis he has posed. When I get a better grip on it, I'll try to explain what I understand. It'll probably be toward the end of February at the earliest.

-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 5:24 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Good to have you on the case.

It's all Greek to me. ;-)

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 30, 2011 8:09 AM

The EM frequency part of this may be starting to possibly get into the mechanics behind abiogenesis. As in the question of how organic chemicals may have come together in the atmosphere or possibly early oceans.

In order for the lightning abiogenesis to work you have to have lightning (the high temperatures and energy involved drive the reaction chemistry), not just the Schumann frequency, you'd need inorganic carbon and nitrogen in the water solution, and you also wouldn't generate fully formed DNA strands that are a perfect match from an existing species. But it's still interesting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS

Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:31 - 564 posts

Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:13 - 7497 posts

human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 17:06 - 952 posts

Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts

US debt breaks National Debt Clock
Sun, November 24, 2024 14:13 - 33 posts

The predictions thread
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:15 - 1189 posts

The mysteries of the human mind: cell phone videos and religiously-driven 'honor killings' in the same sentence. OR How the rationality of the science that surrounds people fails to penetrate irrational beliefs.
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:11 - 18 posts

In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:05 - 4762 posts

Sweden Europe and jihadi islamist Terror...StreetShitters, no longer just sending it all down the Squat Toilet
Sun, November 24, 2024 13:01 - 25 posts

MSNBC "Journalist" Gets put in his place
Sun, November 24, 2024 12:40 - 2 posts

Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Sun, November 24, 2024 10:59 - 422 posts

The Islamic Way Of War
Sun, November 24, 2024 08:51 - 41 posts

VIEW MORE TOPICS

FFF.NET SOCIAL