Mocking Emoto?  Go Back to Your Worm Hole Studies!
340047
For those who mock Mr. Emoto for his revelelations about water being a living thing capable of copying and transmitting information, I'd like to comment.  Whenever someone is being mocked in such a way for presenting insightful information that can have great relevance if true, it is always a sign something's up.  We have history as a guide to those great minds, such as the man who dreamed of the molecule DNA and was able to make a discovery in such a way, and of countless other insights that are based on seemingly unscientific methods of discovery.  This book presents a theory based on experiments that sprang from intuitive insights Mr. Emoto had about water.  Though these experiments are not highly sophisticated we should keep an open mind to possibilities and continue our quest to learn about the true nature of water and our relation to it, and how we might utilize it better.

Just take a moment to think of those who mocked Einstein for his theories and of the extravagant outlandish theories proposed in String Theory such as worm holes, etc.  That's hard science based on math, yet it impresses many scientific minds that would find Emoto's theory laughable. Worm holes into other universes to escape this one that's dying?  That's hard quantum science of this day and age and those scientific minds who attack Emoto here seem to be oblivious to how ridiculous and far out much of their science has become in the 21st Century.  Oh no!  Our universe will expand forever, so let's figure out a way to escape in a wormhole to parallel universe!  That's today's science for you -- way, way out in left field.

Perhaps it insults a scientifically sophisticated mind to consider this simple discovery of water as a possibility to some breakthrough in understanding higher consciousness as it relates to human interaction with the universe.  Sometimes science can get too carried away with itself.  The ancients knew so much more than our civilization does today, that we still don't understand how they built the Pyramids without our technology.
1948551
As a product it's fine; as a program, it's weak; and as an argument, it's pathetic.

"Biased" dating methods? Only if you begin your "exploration"/"investigation" with the *belief* that this planet (and the universe) is only ~4,000 years old.

This is to scientist's objective inquiry what the Warren Commission Report is to a detective's homicide investigation.
2997040
I keep banging up against sloppy editing, "Independent estimates of the clusters' total mass is possible..." and disjunctions that suggest wholesale cutting-down of the manuscript's length without any corresponding attempt to provide new transitions.  The discussion of the cosmic microwave background is one example: you really can't refer to "that 'last scattering surface'" if you haven't mentioned, much less defined, ANY "last scattering surface" previously. And in fact he never does bother to define it or explain why it's called that. (The diagram on page 45 seems oddly drawn, as well: why don't both legs of the triangle that represents our field of vision reach the last scattering surface?  Isn't the point that THAT is what we're looking at in the illustrations that follow?  Or am I missing something?  Since the whole discussion is about the geometry of the straight lines beams of light travel, this really isn't completely trivial.)  The odd shift in topic at the top of the fourth page of Chapter 5 is another bothersome example, with the author suddenly working "to put a lower limit on the age of these stars," referring to stars which have not been mentioned anywhere in the preceding discussion.  I suppose Krauss is referring to Type 1a supernovas, but the disjunction is jarring and unnecessary.

Most of the anecdotes are meaningless morsels, and the overabundance of exclamation marks seems intended to instill an ingratiating, but false, sense of insider-ness.  I appreciate the often successful attempt to provide an introduction to a subject that is barely conceivable, much less comprehensible, but the execution is disturbingly ramshackle.
838675
My, my, my! Isn't it interesting what kind of investigative scholars the Ivies are producing these days! Indeed, I am seeing nothing but whiney, Marxist, pinko, wannabes rearing their wretched heads from along the Eastern established Charles River and coast, damning all who stand in their paths! Conspiracy! Brain washing!! Outright body snatching!!!
Is such a statement offesive? Extremely! I can only hope that my utter sarcasm was dripping in the above statement. We could only be so lucky should our dear author Patty realize the same. By contributing to yet another stereotype about fraternities, the author commits the exact same glowing stereotypes as those noted in jest by myself above. Unfortunately, the author only perpetuates the same stereotypes that several Americans have of the Greek Letter system again-- and again-- and again.
Her contentions were not be merely vile were they not an attempt at meaningful research. First, her ethics of investigating the verious houses are outright deplorable; any action such as purposely deluding and decieving respondents is deserving of extreme scrutiny for bias. Second, the author makes the glaring falsity of assuming that all fraternities are indicative of her (extremely small) sample size. Third, her hasty generalizations are made even worse by assuming that her sloppy qualitative research can in any way represent the Greek Letter system, which not only is blatantly untrue but also antithetical to the very principles of qualitative research. Fourth, as another reviewer noted, her sources and information gathering are so very myopic that a description of banal does not even come close.
In short, I expect that any institution that prides itself on meaningful, insightful, and __accurate__ research would be disgusted at the sheer dearth in this writing. I expect that many readers should (and judging by the reviews, are) insulted by the same.
3170406
I'm reading some of the negative reviews here and I have to ask....did you even read this book or his posts?? There is not ONE SINGLE post that stated he time traveled to save his future from computers!!! Seriously lol. He stated that his main mission was to go back to 1975 to retrieve an IBM 5100 computer that would help re build his worldline after a civil war that led to a WW111 nuclear war. Nothing about computers taking over at all lol so the argument he was basing this off of the terminator movie is ridiculous and shows alot about you . As far as "the predictions" he made not coming true....he also stated this was not his own worldline and it was around 2% different from his own, that being said some of the stuff that happened in his worldline may be different then ours, it may still happen but at a different time or in different ways then it did for him. It's an excellent read and he seems to know what he's talking about. For the ppl saying physicists have now debunked his equations so he Is a fraud did you read his posts either? Lol he clearly states that we have the blueprint to time travel as well but we are missing certain things that have not been discovered yet in our worldline so how can anyone say he is wrong if we haven't discovered it yet? Like I said it's a great read and he knows what he's talking about, so it's up to the reader to decide if it's real or not and if it's not then decide why would he do all of it?
3170641
I received this shirt as a christmas present. Upon wearing it, the fabric of th euniverse was revealed to me. Everything around me appeared to be a shifting miasma of green zero's and ones, upon a pitch black background.

Whilst this gave me initial feelings of uneasiness, I was overcome with a sense of calm that I had never before known. It seemed to me that the entire universe was filled with previously unimaginable possibilities.

I perceived a shift in the numerical landscape as a knock at the door. A series of complex algorithms swirled on the periphery of my vision, I sensed a threat. However, encoded within the shirt's binary codes seemed to be directions on how to neutralise these invaders, as well as clues on the very purpose of existence itself.

I had to take the shirt off for a second to write this review! 5 stars seems almost an insult, but there you have it.

For those fortunate enough to happen upon this artefact, I wish you well. I must now return to the higher plane of existence so that I may become one with eternity. Good day.
2011183
As a biologist and research scientist I have seen all sorts of quackery wrapped in the mantle of "scientific" fact but this book is hard to swallow.  The total data package available totally contradicts the cherry picked data presented in this comic book rag.  As humans are unfortunately the dominant species on planet earth we must also assume the responsibility of running the show and thus far we have been stupid, selfish, and shamefully brutal to our planet and our fellow creatures.  Despite the political and monetary trickery of NASA and the arms making industry, mankind is probably one thousand years from being able to travel to other stars and galaxies with any hope of return passage.  In the mean time perhaps we should take care of our spaceship Earth and stop destroying our only hope of survival.  When we ask the question are we alone in the universe perhaps the real question should be why are we alone???  What intelligent life force capable of real space travel (and not NASA's bogus definition) would want to set us loose on the galaxy after the mess we have made on Earth.  It's a dirty bird that soil's his own nest and we are up to our belly button in our own excrement.
3759454
I lik

:) disgust Consensual outspokEn isn't off-line local kudzu locus dock LOrD idyll pho kcal pithy odious Planck panEls Arco sucks vitally horrablr book lol no lie lol

e this book
515237
The thought experiment is not wrong,the whole point being made was that the ships A & B although at rest "relative" to each other were not at rest "relative" to the vacuum and hence the invariance in the "propagation" velocity of em radiation caused "relative" errors in time of reception. Remember they were in rectilinear motion, say they were moving at .5c relative to the vacuum, then you cant have the forward moving pulse moving at 1.5c through the vacuum and the responding pulse moving backwards at .5c just to keep the timing right! thats the whole point of this. The speed of light is "invariant" to the inertial frame. please reread and retract. oh yeah by the way the book is GREAT buy it! Regards.
  [Cancel]  [Delete post]
Guidelines
1007203
Commercially inventive!!  This is a commercial thinker's ingenuity!!  Add and mix recipe and call it  something else. An experiment that most of the times work.  Translating all I have just said: there are different scenes from Planet Earth and other documentaries, "spliced" it and presto - LIFE is made. I want my money back.  Have you seen BARAKA ?  There are scenes from that one too.  Learned my lesson.
3020192
The first thing one can say is this: it is worrisome that there are so many 5-star reviews of people who believe this dribble.

Apparently most people who even know of this book are paranoid conspiracy theories with an anti-catholic chip on their shoulder.

There are several PROOFS that this book is nonsense. Here are some.

Proof 1:
First of all there is no "LUCIFER" telescope. Moreover if the Vatican would actually do something like the authors are claiming would they actually call the project "Lucifer"?

Let's be reasonable, such names are fit for comic book or video games villains, nothing more.

The Telescope at Mt. Graham is simply called "Large Binocular Telescope" or simply LBT.

The Acronym for "Large Binocular Telescope Near-infrared Utility with Camera and Integral Field Unit for Extragalactic Research" would then be "LBTNIUCIFUER"... and sure you can get "Lucifer" out of it if you CONVENIENTELY take away some of the letters... but that makes no sense at all.
Only paranoid people will read "lucifer" out of it.

Proof2:

Both NASA & The Vatican have nothing to do with the LBT or what is being dubbed by smear sites as LUCIFER (which, as said, is NOT the correct acronym!!!).

The Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT) is ALSO at Mt. Graham, but it's a different telescope and project than the LBT.

The VATT is funded by the Vatican Observatory Research Group, while the LBT by the LBT Consortium. Two completely different organizations!

They are both part of the MGIO, Mount Graham International Observatory, which is tied with the university of Arizona.

Hence; there NO project "Lucifer" and the book is confused entirely regarding which telescope is which, apparently.

Proof 3:

There is no "Planet X" or "Nibiru"

First of all the telescopes are dedicated especially to "Extragalactic Research", NOT for the search of the planet Nibiru or Planet X.

The scientific community has proven that there is NO planet X or Nibiru. This idea is a pseudoscientific planetary object described by Zecharia Sitchin, a person who is famous for pseudo-scientific research, and nonsense.

IN FACT the Babylonian planet Nibiru is most probably Mercury (see the article by  Michael S. Heiser. "The Myth of a Sumerian 12th Planet")

Proof 4:

pseudoscientific nonsense regarding biblical and archeological scholarship.

First of all the idea of "Petrus Romanus" is nonsense. Most scholars (Catholic and otherwise) consider the "prophecies of St. Malachy" to be forgeries. No mention of this document by anyone, not even St. Malachy biographers, has been made if not 400 years after St. Malachy's death.

Also the document prophecies are quite precise up to the year it was discovered, but very vague, if not often quite wrong, afterwards.

Consensus is it is a forgery.

Moreover all SERIOUS biblical scholars would LAUGH at the "ufology-based explanations" of some parts of the bible.

That is not research, but a (bad) science fiction story.

Read ANY work from some serious biblical scholar (even non believers like Bart Ehrman) and you will see that what these people are claiming is beyond ludicrous.

======================

IN CONCLUSIOJN:

This work is either a hoax at the expense of extremely gullible people OR the work of some disturbed and ignorant person.

MY RECCOMENDATION:

Unless you want to laugh, do not buy this book.

If you are one of those who actually believe what this book says, the I urge you to look up what the ACTUAL facts are! Read what the LBT and the VATT telescopes are and do from reputable sites, not crackpot site, search what academic reputable biblical scholars say. Study astronomy and history of science.
2075377
I suspect that Roger Stout set out to try to trash this book without first going through the effort of seriously reading it.  This can be readily seen  from the word equation that he misquotes.  He obviously didn't read the  surrounding text with any care to see what kind of a pedagogical bridge I  was building via that set of word equations. The point about direct space  and reciprocal space that seems to have eluded Stout is that, together,  they aoutomatically provide for both the particle aspect and the wave  aspect of substance, the two fundamemental but entangled features dealt  with by quantum mechanics.  The novel approach that I have taken in this  book allows one to distinquish these two complementary aspects  simultaneously.  Furthermore, it is surprising to me that a supposed  professional engineer would make the mistake of trying to compare the  distance scale of reciprocal space since this is a frequency scale.  They  do not have the same units of measurement and, therefore, cannot be  directly compared, as undergraduate engineers in all universities are  taught. If Stout had not been so intent on his "lashing" goal, he might  have realized that the very small in direct space corresponds with the very  high frequency region in reciprocal space.  Likewise, the very large in  direct space corresponds with the very small frequency region of reciprocal  space.  Since high frequency for photons corresponds with high particle  energy, he shold have at least seen how the particle size scale in the  angstrom and below range match qualitatively with the energetics of  fundamental particles. As an illustrative example, if a time domain pattern  has a 10 nanosecond interval, then its frequency domain counterpart along  the inverse time coordinate would be comprised of a set of waves localized  around 0.628 gigahertz for the first band.  Likewise, if one has a direct  spaces spherical object of 1 angstrom diameter, the first band counterpart  in reciprocal space would be comprised of waves in the 6.28 x 10 ^8 cm ^(  -1) range.  Changing the scale of direct space units that one wishes to use  just produces a corresponding scale change of the reciprcal space units one  must use. Stout states how much he liked Talbot's book, "The Holographic  Universe", yet he seems to have missed the crucial point that the entire  basis of holography is wave diffraction.  Further, the resultant wave  intensity diffracted from any kind of direct space geometrical object can  be shown to arise from the modulus of the Fourier Transform for that  geometrical shape.  He should have learned this in his electrical  engineering classes.  It is sad that Stout was so intent on trashing this  book rather than reading it with an ip mind-he might have learned something  useful for his life! As a final  comment by the author to this open forum ,  this book was not in any way casually written, and I know that is is  challenging for some readers.  However, one should keep in mind tht it was  based on 35 years of personal experimentation and  thought by an  acknowledged world-class expert in several areas of academic science.  This  same author taught for over 30 years at one of the most prestigious  universities in the world, Stanford University, and was selected to be  Chairman to study these new areas of human experience.  During his  industrial and academic career, he has published over 300 peer-reviewed  scientific papers in various international journals plus 3 three technical  books, all of which have meaningfully aided the evolution of the materials  science and materials engineering fields. Can Stout, the trasher, claim as  much! In today's world, unfortunately, it seems very easy to trash the  works of others.  It is much more difficult to constructively build upon  them.  Roger Stout would be well served by paying more attention to his  intenttions than to his misquided logic.
3842381
Braden goes on another chain of erroneous logic based on "channeled literature,"

the fraudlant literature of Carlos Castaneda, Emerald Tablets, Alice Bailey and the Satanic Gnostic texts. He aims to convince the reader that they are really God and that they just forgot, and that we can all be God through compassion. Which is pure misrepresentation and perversion of the 'ancient teachings'. He makes all sorts of claims with no evidence to back them, about the physiological evidence of the anti-aging benefits of compassion without citing any form of peer reviewed studies. His incoherent rants about the 64 DNA CODONS are laughable, and not grounded in biological reality whatsoever. Humans do not possess all 64 Codons! 64 codons exist as map for DNA to RNA to protein transcription for all species possessing eukaryotic DNA. Get the biology straight and stop propegating rumours. Braden pitches his conjectures about DNA are the truth instead of explaining the true scientific facts. Rather than adding to the body of science, he exploits, twists, and changes scientific theory to suit his needs. Any genuine scientist worth his salt would be extremely skeptical if not cynical about this new age drivel.....Let's all embrace Ignorance, he's not such a bad guy after all, right. Now let's get even more compassionately confused in our science. Another reviewer made the witty comment that perhaps the electric surge Braden suffered did far more damage to his brain than he knows......
4252051
After having read all three of his editions, his "third edition" is the most comprehensive by far. Straight off, from within the very first pages of its prologue, you are hurled into a mind struggle between what you were told are scientific facts and the paradoxes they bear. Launier's treatise is sort of a confession for physics! Launier takes you back into history in search for the broken link where physics and logic drifted apart. He boldly asks the questions everyone would like to know the answers for, but is too afraid to ask:
--How did Einstein come up with  e=mc ?
--How did he derive his composition of velocities?
--Why has "The second principle, on which the special theory of relativity rests", been accepted so widely even though it is completely irrational?
--Why did Einstein fail so miserably when he attempted to unify the quantum theory with relativity?
--Do different mass bodies truly accelerate at the same rate under a common gravitational field; even if considered in a vacuum?
--Do electrons actually orbit the nucleus of atoms?
--Are there really 11 dimensions?
--Is the string theory, assuming unidimensional entities, true, or is it just another figment of one's imagination?
And the list goes on and on... You are drawn into a fierce battle between the establishments and commonsense. What he discovered will boggle your mind!  The author wakes you up with a troubling comparison between our classical concept of energy "force per displacement", and the conservation of energy law and the three laws of motion. His displays of proofs will stutter you! He elucidates the resolve in overwhelming details, revealing, by the same token, many of the misfits that plague the field, such as:  e=mc2,  Einstein's most famous equation, rests upon a misleading foundation. Launier believes that physics ought to be logical, and that it has a "universal language".

Put on your thinking hat...!  Not because his theories are hard to grasp, but because he will shatter all your preconceived notions of physical knowledge. You will be provoked to question everything. The theory the world was waiting for has always been there from the beginning; we have simply been blinded by our forefathers' misleading institutions and biased convictions.

France Libert
3604752
Based on the whimsical title FAITH, FASHION, AND FANTASY (the title is embellished with whimsical fonts as well!) I thought this would be one of those engrossing popular physics books written to get the public excited about the newest thinking in physics, which seeks to meld Einsteins Theory of Relativity with Quantum Mechanics and with the biological aspects of human consciousness.

Roger Penrose is renowned for doing that. Born in 1931, he has lived on the cutting edge of physics, cosmology, and brain function from the 1950s to the present. I had encountered his work as portrayed by authors of popular physics books, and wanted to read his theories explained in his own words.

I expected him to provide speculative insights into the question that the more rambunctious quantum mechanics gurus are asking: Did the material universe create consciousness, or did consciousness create the material universe? Penrose has related quantum mechanics to human consciousness:

===
It is a striking fact that almost all the interpretations of quantum mechanics  depend to some degree on the presence of consciousness for providing the observer that is required for  the emergence of a classical-like world. Roger Penrose
===

He has  coauthored the Penrose-Hameroff theory that the human brain is a quantum machine:

===
The three bases of the Penrose-Hameroff theorynoncomputability, the involvement of quantum gravity, and the role of tubulins [proteins inside the neurons of the brain] are each controversial. And the entire theory has been derided as having the explanatory power of pixie dust in the synapses.

Rosenblum, Bruce; Kuttner, Fred. Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness (p. 249). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
===

Based on what Id read about Penrose, I expected a great read, mixing the latest knowledge of physics and the cosmos with a little of that pixie dust that theoretical physicists can make so entertaining when they let their hair down and start talking to lay readers.

However, the book is all hard-core, no-holds-barred physics. Ive studied quantum mechanics as a layperson for more than 40 years. Even so, I found it a difficult read. There is no explanation of new theories or physics, such as  Twistor theory as an alternative to strings. Penrose doesnt explain what Twistor theory is, so if you're not familiar with it, you'll have to research it for yourself.

The book did make me appreciate how deeply insightful our physicists are in discerning the fundamental workings of the Universe. Penrose shows how they have been able to mathematically model the Universe from the smallest subatomic particle to the largest mega-structures, although controversies remain in melding Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, and human consciousness.

Penrose also makes the point that we may be on the verge of resolving these controversies and acquiring a new level of fundamental knowledge about the Universe --- and the part our consciousness plays in shaping it --- that will be as earth-shaking as the previous great discoveries by Newton, Einstein, and the Quantum Mechanics physicists.

Just be aware that this book is a professional physics exposition, not entertainment for laypersons. To glean the most from the book, you need to be a professional physicist already familiar with Penroses work.

For lay readers, perhaps a more suitable as introduction to Penroses subject matter can be found in QUANTUM ENIGMA: PHYSICS ENCOUNTERS CONSCIOUSNESS  (by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner) summarizes Penroses theories in a few pages. It is a one-stop guide to current thinking on quantum mechanics written specifically for comprehension by laypersons.
1443750
This book has all the makings of a crackpot work ... assertions without mathematics to back them up, philosophy masquerading as science. I like to look at these "crank" works because I do real physics, mathematically-consistent kind of stuff.
But Salem is not your standard Crank. He seems to have stumbled on truth with this book and his other one, 9.8 Angstroms. Specifically, he derives a universal constant of acceleration.
"So what," the real-physicist says, "he's not a real physicist!" And he may not be, but he did come up with a universal constant about ten years before the rest of the mainstream physics community did. In 1999, the discovery of this acceleration was hailed as the greatest scientific discovery of the year. (See my review of Salem's other work, 9.8 Angstroms for specifics.)
Today, "Real" Theoretical Physicists struggle to nail down a cosmological constant. And every time I hear some news of the progress of their struggle, I remember Kenneth Salem, the "crank", the "crackpot", the "fake" physicist, who was there before most of them.
Real scientists do not call other scientists names. They endeavor to keep an open mind.
1516650
First...sorry! Truth-seeker here, however I must say although you engaged my brief attention and expanded my thought structure, you failed.
Speaking not as a troll but a concerned soul, an individual with your so called insights, clearance and talents did not nail one bit of solid fact to your message. A message so paramount to humanity and you display it as boring interview dialogue with no solidity.

1/2 truth spoken here...

God for bid this possible perception plays out, I believe I'm ready and willing to cross over versus struggling for survival only to become an enslaved lab rat to evolved interplanetary species.