GoldenEagles

Of course, discussing the question of what it takes to run such experiments, even with the intent of pinning that down, would go a long way to helping those who are interested in doing these experiments, understand what they need. An objective and lucid discussion of exactly this element of the subject, is exactly what will facilitate the bringing forth onto the public record of exactly the data you say you are interested in. Can we agree on that? Moreover, in as much as the definition of the experimental matrix, is required to pin down all of the logistical requirements, and costs, it might be worthwhile to discuss what kind of an experimental matrix would be sufficient to persuade highly skeptical minds, such as yours. In this regard, data that you consider irrelevant would have no persuasive power. On the other hand, data that you consider to be relevant might have great persuasive power. What, then, would be an experimental matrix that you would consider valid, and of sufficient scope, that would produce date that would be relevant to you? You, and others who are interested in this thead subject, could help define that, and the perspective of one who would surely stand as a highly critical judge of the outcome would be important, and then we could cost that out. In other words, we could then consider what it would cost to implement an experimental matrix (which skeptical minds help to design) that would produce data that would be persuasive to those very skeptical minds.

When people are indulging a condition of highly negative emotion in relationship to a particular idea, they will often say irrational things just for spite. I think that is the case with this comment. You will notice that all comments up to this point, in relationship to the high cost issue, have been predicated on the acceptance of the premise, that is, if the costs of the experiment were indeed high cost, that indeed, this would be a deterrent, which is common sense. Therefore, a lot of misguided energy went into making (spurious) arguments trying to show that the cost of the experiment was not high, arguments which I have effectively answered. I have given evidence that the cost of the most rudimentary experimental framework is high. Also, a sign of the highly active presence of negative emotion, is this propensity to refuse to agree with anything that the "opponent" has to say, even if what the opponent has to say is correct, accurate and rationale. Perhaps this too is a reason why the advance of science into this particular area has been so slow in coming. The idea that large amounts of money grow on trees, is quite an absurd position to take, when thousands of experiments go unfunded every year because there is no source of funding. And of course, if this is the attitude that is prevalent on funding review boards, this profound negativity that makes every effort to stay outside the circle of objectivity, then we have our finger on another important factor that works to suppress research in this area. Yes, the very people who will argue against funding research in this area, will turn around and ask where is the evidence for repeatable results.

In this statement of yours, posted on April 12, which was five days ago, you posed this question --- "Why can't the experiments be repeated?" And others have posed similar questions. By addressing the subject of experimentation cost, I have addressed your question, and proposed at least a partial answer. That the cost of experimentation may be a factor that keeps people out of this line of enquiry. In response to this thesis, we got some rather wild opinions thrown out about the experiment being simple, even trivial, and so forth, and that it could be accomplished using one's kitchen refrigerator. I gave a definitive response, that illustrates that simply establishing the most basic framework for doing proper tests in this area, without even considering the issue of the scale of the experiment, was high. This was a line of inquiry that you helped push to the forefront. And then you come back at me and say that I am not responding to your concerns. The record tells a different story. This is the question you posed - "Why can't the experiments be repeated?" In your own mind, it appears you have an answer to this question. Your answer would be, that it cannot be repeated, because many people have tried to repeat the experiment, and they have failed. If this is so, then where are THEIR REPORTS? There are no such reports of people trying this experiment, and failing to achieve similar results. This is one indicator that your assumption is in error. Another real-world factor that would cast further doubt on your assumption, is the question of experiment cost. I have responded with the idea that high costs may keep a lot of people out of this line of enquiry. And I have presented some EVIDENCE that supports this idea. Now, you need to put yourself on the record, in terms of responding to my answer to YOUR QUESTION. What is your sense of this? Could the high cost of experimentation be a factor in keeping people out of this line of enquiry? Can we agree on that?

It was not my intent to embarrass anyone into silence, by demonstrating in such a clear and concise manner how far various participants in this thread had allowed their minds to become untethered to the standard, or the reference point, of objective truth. When the mind is driven wholly by emotion, primarily negative emotion, the thoughts generated therein are most likely wholly in error, as we have seen demonstrated above, in regards to the must fundamental and scientifically valid rudiments of this experimental matrix, i.e. the general framework of natural law associated with the production of symmetrical water crystals (snowflakes) a framework that must be replicated and maintained in the laboratory as the essential context for this line of experimentation. The scientist who can learn to identify, and set aside, the distorting influence that negative emotion has upon the thought processes , that scientist will have set his or her feet upon the path that will lead to clear thinking. The people, in general, are clearly in need of leaders in this regard. And I would ask you, who will it be that will lead the masses up this trail of light and reason if it is not the scientists of this world? And so, those who associate themselves with the disciplines of science have a more than ordinary responsibility in this regard. I will stipulate to this fact, that, as Children of God, each of you deserve the respect inherent in that relationship, which I give you without reservation. And this is a level of respect without room for denigration. However, the Children of God (on this planet at any rate) have much to learn concerning the principles of right thinking. Much of the chaos on this planet can be traced to the neglect of, or ignorance of, one of the most fundamental principles thereof, which points to the deleterious effects that negative emotions have upon the thought processes. Thought processes driven by powerful negative emotions especially in the domain of science will always exhibit the characteristics of error. And so, it seems to me, that one of the first steps in establishing the integrity of any scientific endeavor, would be to make the sincere effort to identify and cast out from the process any negative emotions one can identify, as these will always be pollutants in the crystal lake of scientific discovery. Isn't it true therefore, and who will have the courage to agree with me, that this experiment cannot be accomplished in your kitchen or my kitchen. That the experimenter will need a walk-in freezer in which your workstation must be kept and used, and which never goes below -5C, and that you will need a smaller freezer, stored inside of the walk-in, that will get the water samples frozen down to a temperature of -25C. And that the smaller freezer must be kept inside of the larger freezer, so that the samples, when they are removed, and transported to the microscope work station, are not exposed to temperatures any warmer than -5C?

The basic structure of the experiment must reproduce the conditions found in nature that cause snowflakes to form. We are looking for crystal growth from symmetrical hexagonal cores. These are the conditions that Mr. Emoto has set up in his experiments. You need to begin with a very low temperature, -25C (-13F) a temperature which commercial kitchen freezers don't get down to, let alone your standard kitchen refrigerator freezer combination. From what I understand, the design goal for a home-use freezer is 0 deg F. By comparison, we need to get down to -13F (-25C) for the initial freezing of the samples. The home freezer will not get close to the target temperature. I further understand that the design goal for a commercial grade freezer, is -10F. Better, but still shy of the goal. Because ice cream and frozen food does not have to reach a -25C freezing point, engineers don't design that capability into home or commercial freezers. Designing a capability into a product that your customers will never use, is a waste of money. And so, they don't do it. In our situation we need a laboratory grade freezer that can get down to, and maintain a -25C temperature. Additionally the more samples you must freeze, and this would be the case with a large experimental matrix, the larger freezer you will need. The cost of an appropriate laboratory grade freezer start at about $6000. See these examples. Next, your microscope work station must be kept at a constant -5C. This temperature differential, -25C to -5C is what the crystals need to grow. They do not grow under any other conditions. While any kitchen freezer will give you a -5C temperature (23F), the problem is, you and your microscope will not fit inside of it. You need a walk in freezer in which you can install your work station desk, your microscope, your photography equipment, and your chair, and in which these tools never leave. The whole work atmosphere must be maintained at -5C. Perhaps the last commenter's missed these particular facets of the experimental matrix. We need to realize, that Mr. Emoto and his researchers, over ten years of experimentation, have determined that these are the temperature conditions which produce the growth of these crystals in the most predictable and reproducible manner. Though, I don't want to make it sound like they thought this up on their own. They just discovered, through experimentation, that the more closely they can mimic, in the laboratory, the conditions in nature that produce snowflakes, the more of these kinds of crystal structures they can produce and photograph. I hope upon reflection of these important facts, that we can agree that this experiment cannot be accomplished in your kitchen or my kitchen. Again, you need a walk-in freezer in which your workstation must be kept and used, and which never goes below -5C, and you need a smaller freezer, stored inside of the walk-in, that will get your sample freezing temperatures down to -25C. The smaller freezer must be kept inside of the larger freezer, so that the samples, when they are removed, and transported to the microscope work station, are not exposed to temperatures any warmer than -5C.

I genuinely believe that my estimates are reasonable. Please explain to me why you believe these cost estimates are foolish. Please take a few moments to offer your own set of estimates, if you believe you have a better sense of physical and economic reality in this area. I would welcome the correction. And moreover, along with your own estimate, it would be useful if you would offer an outline of the general parameters of the experiment you have in mind, so we are comparing apples to apples. In regards to the parameters of the experiment, we can use the post above by Bignose as a general guide, as to what it ought to include. It must be a valid double-blind experiment, with sufficient scope for the results to have any substantial meaning. The general outline of the double blind experiment conducted by Emoto, et. al., had some serious deficiencies as Bignose has pointed out. So the experiment must have a better design, and upscaled in scope, to have any value. Agreed?

I don't see any knee jerk repudiations of my cost estimates, so I will assume from that that those who are reading this forum thread consider those stated costs to be a reasonable first estimate. Perhaps not perfect, but in the ballpark. And if it is indeed a reasonable first estimate, then I would hope that an objective mind could agree with this thesis, that the capital expenditure associated with this line of experimentation does constitute one valid factor that would effectively put a cap on the number of people who would be in the position to do this kind of research. Can we agree on that one narrow point?

What in the world does such a statement have to do with scientific enquiry? If you have objections to ideas or principles stated, why don't you express them in a rationale manner? I can see, in my mind's eye, the conference table where you are seated, gathered with your collegues, and when you hear something you don't like, and not liking something is a purely emotional reaction, out of your mouth spouts this "what a heap of crap." After even one such outburst at a real world conference table, without an apology, you would not be invited back.

My post concerning Christopher Columbus proved a valid point, that the reactionary negative postures taken in relationship to the endeavors of a true explorer, whether that explorer was Columbus, or is Mr. Emoto, is not a posture worthy of modern scientists. In your last post, you have expressed some far more reasonable sentiments, which I appreciate. If you, and others, want me to do these experiments, please send me a check for $270,000 (US Dollars). When I receive the check, I will rent some office space (a lease is required - though much space is available at reasonable costs in the current economic climate), and I will order the walk-in freezer (large enough to accommodate a microscope work station), not just any walk-in freezer, but one that can maintain a steady -5C temperature, with humidity control, and arrange to have it installed. I will order the smaller laboratory grade freezer required to bring the samples to -25C. I will hire a qualified lab assistant. I will order the equipment necessary for the micro photography work. These are my cost estimates: 1. Office Lease for one Year - $25,000 2. Purchase and Installation of walk-in freezer - $25,000 3. Purchase of (cabinet size) laboratory grade freezer (-25C) - $5000. 4. Purchase of equipment for Micro Photography - $25,000 5. Miscellaneous Instrumentation - $25,000 6. Utility bills for one year - $15,000 7. One year Salary for a lab assistant - $40,000 8. Misc. Office Expenses - $10,000 9. Logistical Support for off-site experimental scenarios over one year - $100,000 Total $270,000 The high cost of the experimental scenario, coupled with the almost certain attacks upon the character of anyone who might step up to the plate (as evidenced by the irrationale negativities thrown around by some of the members of this forum) may well be a partial explanation for why people are not flocking into this line of enquiry.

Yes, if Columbus sat at home all of his life, and just theorized about a New World, and pontificated about it endlessly in the coffee shops of his day, then his idea would not have been worth much. However, Columbus was certainly a Type A personality. He believed in his idea so intensely that he devoted his life to it. And persuaded the Queen of Spain to finance his experiment. His experiments of course, and there was more than one, (contrary to the above history-distorting comments) proved his theory. That is why Mr. Emoto is just not writing books. He has a staff, a laboratory, and is constantly making the effort to improve his techniques, and experimental methodologies. Clearly, that is why he made a considerable effort to do the "Double Blind" experimentation that so many people were calling for. I provided the article link above which describes the results. The experiment was considered a general success on behalf of Mr. Emoto's theory. It had enough of a successfull outcome, to justify moving forward with additional experiments, which I understand, they are doing. Many people like to follow the explorer in their rowboats, calling for the crew to abandon ship. These are not true scientists.

Indeed, we can imagine some of Queen Isabella's "scientific" advisors of the day, sincerely arguing, as you are doing, "no, don't waste your time, or spend a penny on this wild idea, until we have tangible evidence that there is something out there." The pursuit of truth begins inside of the heart and mind. Just as the voyage of Christopher Columbus demonstrates.

With that kind of attitude, Columbus would never have started on his voyage to discover the new world. He had evidence of his theory only after a very long voyage.

I think it would behoove all scientists who have an interest in this subject area, to realize that Mr. Emoto has raised a high and bright banner in the midst of the raging battle between two contending world views, on the one hand, the world view which desires to reach beyond outer appearances, into the domain of spiritual causation, to find real answers and solutions to the pressing problems of the human race, and on the other, that world view which militantly denies the existence of anything beyond physical appearances, and its readily identifiable material components, holding fast, with its own form of religious fanaticism, to the ideology which proclaims that material progress alone will solve the problems of the human race. Much of the intense emotional energy thrown in the direction of Mr. Emoto, has as its object, simply the desire to tear his bright and colorful banner down, and to trample it into the ground, these proponents of the materialist world view having as much potency of fanaticism in their ideology as any Islamic Fundamentalist. Any search of material on the web gives us a good picture of what is true. The character of Mr. Emoto is impeccable, he is a good and sincere person, a true believer in the theories he advocates. And he is doing his best to advance his theories in the most accurate and honest manner possible. And there are many who can sense that he is onto something. There is some important truth shining through his activities. Yet, this is also true, that it does not shine forth clearly, and perfectly. I would say, that if one resides in dark prison cell of ignorance, which describes every person on earth, with only reason to point your attention in the direction of the long-sealed doorway to knowledge, it would be wise to follow the line of reason, because only thereby, will your attention be properly directed to that section of the apparently dark and featureless wall, even to that section of the wall where the long-sealed door way has always existed. Reason alone, which throws light upon the veracity of ideas and principles, and not darkness upon another's character, has the ability to properly position our attention upon the appropriate section of what appears at first glance, to be, as I said, a dark and featureless wall, in order to catch the remnants of light that might still be glowing therefrom, and is still glowing therefrom, perhaps just around the edges of that door, perhaps a few photons at a time. With this light so dim, our attention must be focused firmly and persistently in the right direction, to discern its outline, and still it would only be an outline. To have in one’s possession the key that would open it, would be another matter entirely. Yet, Mr. Emoto has his inner eye on that very dim outline. And as we follow his work, we can find that very dim outline ourselves, and perhaps we can find more, that is, if our discipline in the rigors of reason can be perfected. And so, we see, that all of these attempts at character assassination are simply a device of distraction, by those forces who do not want the Children of God to find that door. They kick up a big cloud of dust, even on the very threshold --- it is the dust of falsehood --- which makes the darkened room, even darker. Kicking up dust clouds of intellectual obfuscation is not the role of the scientist. True scientists are interested in truth, and should not allow themselves to be an instrument of this anti-spiritual warfare. If there is truth to be found, let us allow reason alone to point the way.

If you are going to make a statement like that, in terms of Mr. Emoto being offered large sums of money and so forth, and ignoring the offers, I would like to see you back that up with some evidence. Please provide a reference to your information source on that point. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWhile you are looking for a (probably non-existant) reference to your afformentioned allegations ... You might want to study this reference from, Explore - The Journal of Science and Healing, which contradicts your, and others, "non-scientific", characterization of Mr. Emoto's work. Double-Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation The results of this double blind test tended to confirm Mr. Emoto's stated theories.

I would like to say that this was a very interesting lecture. However, the URL as shown did not work on my computer (Windows Home XP) but the underlying URL did work. The .mov file linked to is a text file that points to a streaming video URL, as follows - This is the URL that worked. I would definitely recommend this lecture. It certainly gives us a more focused sense of comprehension when dealing with the principle of "surface tension". And the two applications that the professor talks about at the end are very interesting. Water based solar cells indeed, that work on the basis of the principles of photosynthesis, a very high efficiency process, should have conventional solar cell manufacturers shaking in their boots. But more to the point, how do you think this information applies to the formation of ice crystals? And concerning your last comments, and the others directly above, I would propose that the overall context, in terms of what Mr. Emoto is trying to prove, really has nothing to do with the effort to try to understand how water crystals form. Other than the possibility that a deeper understanding might lead to the developpment of more targeted experiments which can either validate, or repudidate the "paranormal" dimensions of the above experiment.