Russian scientists, frequency-based DNA altering and stuff
Offline I recently got this message. According to it, russian scientists finally managed to do some awesome things. For example, they:
So they successfully transformed, for example, frog embryos to salamander embryos simply by transmitting the DNA information patterns! This way the entire information was transmitted without any of the side effects or disharmonies encountered when cutting out and re-introducing single genes from the DNA. This represents an unbelievable, world-transforming revolution and sensation! All this by simply applying vibration and language instead of the archaic cutting-out procedure! This experiment points to the immense power of wave genetics, which obviously has a greater influence on the formation of organisms than the biochemical processes of alkaline sequences.
Among other things, their discoveries should allow bodily tissues to be regenerated almost in real time, by providing the right frequencies through light. Do I believe that is possible? Hell yes, old Ben Creme described that "Technology of light" decades ago and into great detail. He also wrote that Russians do some advancement about that, and that laser is a part of this technology. So that would fit in the image.
But I have no idea if that message is an actual reality, if it's *already* happening now and not in a decade or three. Of course it's almost like from esoteric textbook, but I don't know how about the evidence. There are things that I didn't know before, like DNA phantom effect. What do local geneticists and physicists think?
Here's the original version: http://www.soulsofdistortion.nl/dna1.html
I think if this is true, it should finally demonstrate the existence of subtle forms of matter and energy, and how they participate on living processes. As one of the sources, I also recommend the document of
W.A. Tiller: What Are Subtle Energies? after a brief reading through, I think this is some decent stuff, the guy has some good points and equations.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
- Login to post comments
Uhhhhh..... yeeaaah..... no.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
No, I didn't. I can smell bullshit that 'bold' over 3 hyperlinks away. "Applying vibration" to DNA sounds about as plausible homeopathic genetics.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Things are usually not simple or straightforward, so I can't exclude the possibility there is some truth in that message. I've been through too much to be sure about what is possible and what not.
Here, I found this:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=159382
There is some decent and serious investigation by the Duncan guy, may he live long and prosper. Basically, he tracked this down to the SPIE Digital library:
http://spiedl.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?smode=strresults&SMODE=strsearch&possible1zone=article&pjournals=SPIEDL&KEY=SPIEDL&sort=rel&maxdisp=25&threshold=0&deliveryType=spiedl&possible1=poponin&submit=Search
http://spiedl.aip.org/vsearch/servlet/VerityServlet?KEY=SPIEDL&possible1=Gariaev%2C+Peter+P.&possible1zone=author&maxdisp=25&smode=strresults&aqs=true
Apparently, SPIE Digital library requires a subscription. Even if I'd have it, look what these articles are about:
The problem of vibrational energy transfer in ordered quasi-one-dimensional molecular structures is considered.The model of nonlinear lattice of classical nonlinear oscillators is investigated numerically in a broad range ofparameter variations (anharmonisity of vibron and phonon subsystems, and nonlinear coupling between them). Theconditions for the formation of soliton-like excitation of different types from initial local disturbances are determined.A numerical simulation showed that new types of supersonic anharmonic two-component solitons in an anharmonicallattice of harmonic oscillators can be excited. This type of nonlinear soliton-like excitation can be important inunderstanding the electron and energy transport mechanisms in molecular crystals, molecular aggregates, molecularoriented films and biopolimers.
Look, I'm afraid this is not gobbledygok anymore, but perfectly valid scientific jargon, which is a foreign language to me, in english, which is also a foreign language. Even though I often read Wikipedia just for the fun of reading, I hardly remember what soliton is. Maybe in a few decades I will be educated or clairvoyant enough to comprehend that, but this needs an expert.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
1) Yes, it is still gobbledygook.
2) It uses scientific-sounding jargon, but it is not 'perfectly valid'.
3) If scientific jargon, written in English, is doubly a foreign-language to you, how can you be so certain that it is 'perfectly valid'?
It doesn't need an expert any more than a paper on theology needs an expert to know it's all bullshit.
Questions to ask yourself before putting so much trust/faith in jargon-loaded bullshit:
1) What predictions have they made?
2) What methods of experiment and/or observation have they used to test the predictions?
3) What evidence do they have that support those tested predictions?
Look for those things, and when you find that they are lacking and/or suspicious, you may come back to this thread and say, "You're right, natural. You *can* smell bullshit that bold from over three hyperlinks away."
Where's the video of a frog embryo turning into a salamander embryo, with the Russian guy going "Woo woo woo" and waving his hands dramatically? Where's the tables of data and graphs of predicted vs. actual results? Where is the discussion of alternative hypotheses, and why their predictions don't match observations?
Luminon, I suggest reading some actual science-based magazines, such as Scientific American (very good) or Discover (not as good, but okay) or Popular Science (not nearly as good, but better than a newspaper). Or whatever science-based publications you have available in the Czech Republic. Try to see the difference between a real scientific paper vs. a jargon-obfuscated woo woo paper. It would do you a lot of good, IMHO.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Well, it seems that this rumor about changing embryo of frog to salamander has no evidence to it. But at least the DNA phantom effect turned out very promisingly. I don't know what it is, but it seems to be a reflection of etheric template that is behind every cell and DNA molecule. I have done some digging and I found out that this is already well known thing that found a lot of use in practice.
Apparently, DNA or cells radiate a subtle light and this light can be detected when you know what to look for. It should be the light radiated by etheric body and etheric currents around us that are less or more charged. I don't know what kind of charge it is, electric, heat, luminescence, magnetism or several together, but it has an indirect influence on our health and vitality. But if the cells radiate light that reflects their health state, it might be theoretically possible to feed that light signals back to them, only the ideal state. They could take it as an encouragement and get healthy again for a while.
The method is called Polycontrast Interference Photography and the inventor Harry Oldfield looks like he's good at what he's doing. He invented several devices on this principle, including a microscope and has many photographs documenting its function. I think I'll give a hint to Bob Spence, it should fall into his expertise. I hope this is clear, I am no worse than these spiritual healers out there, except that for me these energies are tangible but not visible. With this device aiding my sight, I could try a lot of things. It should show on screen how I can light up patterns of energy around me and on my body and show them on photographs or or video in real time.
So, let's look at some of Oldfield's work:
The brochure on PIP - there are some interesting descriptions of people's chakras, meridians and energy captured on the camera. Here too.
His microscope is interesting by the similarity to R. Raymond Rife's work. Oldfield is clearly a talented inventor and technician, he knows his work with light.
Yes, perhaps it is the time to start introducing these well-meaning and hard-working people to the idea of having at least some of their documents written in scientific format.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Please explain how you can tell what is technical jargon vs. what is metaphor, if the technical jargon is doubly-foreign to you.
And by the way, internal consistency is a *terrible* way of assessing the validity of scientific claims. The *only* way to truly test them is with predictions and evidence.
Lots of wild and ridiculous claims are internally consistent. Problem is, they are not *externally* consistent with *reality*.
Luminon, there are a gazillion things that *might* be true. Are you going to investigate them all? Or are you going to filter out the more implausible ones until their proponents put forth some *positive* evidence? We have a limited time on this Earth, and I personally don't want to go chasing after every shadow of a leprechaun or supposed 'aura' of DNA, when I know perfectly well that such claims are hugely implausible and smell very boldly like complete and total bullshit. Give me some real evidence, or don't be surprised when I continue to denigrate this wanna-be pseudo-science.
When someone's claim X turns out to be complete fluff, what does that probably tell you about their other claims Y and Z?
How many disproven and unsupported claims will it take to convince you that there's nothing really behind any of this crap? 10? 15? What?
Has it really now?
Do you not smell the bold odour of bovine excrement? WTF is an etheric template, and how can one have a 'reflection'? Where the *FUCK* is there any evidence for any of that shit?
Do you realize that the 'ether' was a seriously considered scientific hypothesis at one point (during Einstein's time)? Do you know what happened to that hypothesis?
It was fucking proven FALSE!
So, your woo woo guys are basing their load of shit on a FALSE hypothesis. What does that tell you about the likelihood that their pile of crap has any basis in reality?
Oh, really? Oops, I guess I must have spoken too soon. I apologize. I didn't realize you had real evidence of a practical effect of phatom-ghosty DNA ethereal reflectiony templatey thingamajigs. That's fascinating. I would love to hear about this amazing discovery! I love learning new things. What did you dig up? What were the actual, documented practical applications of this theory? What accurate predictions does the theory make that are not made already by standard scientific theories?
Ah, why didn't you say so?! I think I can see it now! Wow, that's amazing. Now that I know what to look for, I can definitely see it. It's very subtle, very hard to see, actually. I have to kind of squint my eyes real hard. It helps if I press the palms of my hands into my eyes for a few minutes first. Then I see all these weird spots and lines and things.
Funny, if I stare at it too long, it kind of fades away until I press my palms into my eyes again. There must be some kind of etheric astral crystal energy source of quantum electrodynamic wave vibration charges in the palms of my hands. I have to charge up my eyes to see the phantom-reverse-ghost-reflection inverse quadruple-spin oscillitron rays coming from my DNA.
Shit! I think I just noticed that my DNA is infected with evil dark spirits from the ethereal plane. I better get a plane ticket to Russia so those quacks can cure me with their frog-salamander therapy!
Holy fuck, Luminon! Thanks for alerting me to this tremendously important, useful, and practical effect! Well, I'm off to Russia to exorcise my DNA. If I survive the next few days, I'll stop by the Czech Republic on my way home and we can have some slivovic and pivo to celebrate this amazing discovery! Wish me luck!
So indirect, in fact, that it is completely undetectable.
I think I've got it to the point where I can set up a feedback loop and achieve quantum ethereal resonance so that my body literally lights up like a lightbulb. I'm totally naked with the lights off, but the room is as bright as day! This is amazing. I'm going to save a fucking fortune on the electricity bill.
That's nothing. I just figured out how to configure a normal universal TV remote to switch quantum ethereal 'channels' in your DNA to create any mutation you could desire. Just send me $375 and I'll send one to you. Sounds expensive? Just think of all the problems you have, and how you could use this remote control to just switch off all those bad channels! All your problems would go away. Wouldn't it be worth $375 to have all your problems go away? Just think about it. Imagine... all your problems gone. Keep that thought in mind, and focus intensely on it. Isn't that something you desperately want? $375 is nothing compared to the value of that! Send your money now, and I'll throw in some AA batteries for free! Quick, send it now before this offer ends (and before you lose the thought).
/snarky-sarcasm-off
You're definitely no worse than them. At least you aren't publishing bullshit papers and inventing bullshit devices to rip people off.
(ok, maybe just a bit more sarcasm ^^^ )
(definitely not sarcasm: )
No, that is not what I mean. I'm not suggesting you read some actual science publications so that you'll think these particular guys are bullshitters. I'm suggesting you read some actual science publications so that *you* will be able to tell the *difference* between a scientific paper and a paper that is *not* scientific. That is all.
It doesn't have to be bullshit. Heck, these Russians *might* be on to something. *Might*.
But, that is not the point of my suggestion. The point of my suggestion is that *you* do not seem to be able to tell the difference between science and pseudo-science, and I made the suggestion for your benefit. IMHO (that means, "In my humble opinion" ) it would do you some good. I could be wrong, but I really do think it would be very helpful to you personally.
Do you realize that by saying this, you are implying that *I* only read Scientific American. Do you really think that's true? I hope you know me better than that.
I read lots of things. Some of them scientific publications, some of them for entertainment, some of them for professional development, some for other reasons, etc.
But, when I want to refresh my memory on 'what is the difference between real science and pseudo-science', I cannot think of any better reading material than something like Scientific American (or an equally good science magazine in the language of your choice).
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I can not do it the simple way, by looking at the format of paragraphs (predictions, methods, evidence, conclusion) because often there is truth and bullshit mixed in lesser or greater proportion. I've got to read through it and save the passengers of truth from the sinking ship of bullshit, if possible.
No, I'm not going to investigate all possible things, other people already did it. My parents, for example. They have this hobby for 25 years and in that time they tried everything on the market. For years now we have good idea what is bullshit or not. We have developed and unified esoteric theory that we found externally and internally consistent and therefore useful. It's wonder what we accomplished without any help from scientific institutions. We don't have funding, advanced technology or worldwide organization, so you can't expect it. We can only provide guidance, not evidence.
It seems that for you alternative medicine and esoteric community are just groups of honest fools and dishonest conmen. Similarly, my people often think that scientific community is a group of fanatically skeptical materialists and servants of corporate funding.
Such thinking is wrong, even if it may be true to a degree. Hell, I can admit that maybe 90% of New Age movement is bunkum, this is why there are few groups like mine that uphold higher standards. There must be mutual learning or unofficial and official relations to the scientific community. The friendship of David Bohm and Jiddu Krishnamurti proves that such union is possible. Even if it should take classes of scientific method for esotericists and classes of esotericism for skeptics, or book-for-book reading exchange, it should be done. It will of course involve many Muhammads going to the mountains.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.