Re: weird water-fasting poop

[Guest guest]

,

>Nope. I never said that. I said the term Body Electronics

>undoubtedly refers to prana and the nadis. It's a repackaging of

>marma therapy. It seems the term was coined in the fifties--I don't

>know the history--so its greatest offense, to me, is its quaintness.

>The sick thing is I so don't care about this.

>

>

No the sick thing is Body Electronics doesn't refer to yogic concepts.

Blind faith makes you grasp at straws and throw that in to support some

old guru and his racist ideas. He spoke of laws and he spoke of passing

through the space time continuum warp, or some such nonsense, not nadis

and prana. Then you make sure you attack me at every angle over yoga

concepts that aren't even part of the BE game. That's pretty sick,

alrighty.

I am through discussing things with you.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> Re: weird water-fasting poop

>

>

>

>>[] Except for one salient point--the fuzziness--they sound

>similar to

>>what Doug on calls " fuzzies:

>>

>> " ...I was shocked when...I passed quite a number of strange looking

>>things into the toilet. They were approximately one centimeter in

>>diameter, and generally of a whitish or grey color, with black or

>>brown feelers or tentacles attached to them. People in Body

>>Electronics politely refer to them as 'fuzzies'. These are carcinoid

>>tumors, and they are frequently found in people's intestines...Only

>>when I saw these first few fuzzies did it really become obvious to me

>>that my knee troubles were the least of my problems. " --How We Heal

>>

>[suze] Luckily, none of these hard things in my stool have the

>characteristic

>tentacles of tumors so I'm not worried about that.

>

>[Deanna] Dr. on may delve into (or latch onto) native nutrition,

>however, I would like to know where he gets the idea that stool

> " fuzzies " are carcinoid.

I didn't even notice whom was quoting, and really know next to

nothing about on and his work. However, as described these

" fuzzies " as having tentacles, I assumed they were blood vessels, since,

most or all tumors to my knowledge develop blood vessels with which to feed

themselves. It's termed angineogenesis. Which is why some natural substances

that prevent angineogenesis are used in cancer therapies.

I too would be interested to know where on got his info on this. But

if it turns out that these tentacled masses are tumors, I'd wager a bet that

the " tentacles " are indeed blood vessels.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

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

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

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

[Guest guest]

>

>Hmm. Maybe I'm reading too much into this here, but I think there is

>a sort of " metaphor " or something similar in atomic/molecular theory

>with respect to electrons. Just look at molecular orbital theory and

>the classic (forgot the name!) paradigm-- totally different views

>about how electrons are arranged, but both are used, depending on the

>situation. They're, to some degree, theoretical constructs that are

>in some sense, sort of similar to metaphor.

>

Kinda sorta maybe. Not. Physicists, including Cal tech Nobel laureate

Murray Gell-Mann have called this " quantum flapdoodle. " You ought to

read that great book I sent you by Greene, _The Fabric of the

Cosmos_; if you haven't, that is.

And funny thing: the explanation by this physicist (Victor Stenger,

outspoken atheist <gasp>) quoted below brings up the Starship

Enterprise. It is funny because that Doug on brings in the word

" warp " into his mystical adventures through the

Time-Space-Continuum-Warp. Only Star Trek uses such jargon. Is it any

wonder that China and Europe are surpassing the US in science? The New

Age mystics all want a piece of the quantum pie, only they often don't

understand nor do they have any interest in the equations behind it

all. It's all fuzzy to them. And Schrodinger's equation is a bitch,

what with the partial derivatives and all. - Deanna

http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html

Wave-Particle Duality

Quantum mechanics is thought, even by many physicists, to be suffused

with mysteries and paradoxes. Mystics seize upon these to support their

views. The source of most of these claims can be traced to the so-called

wave-particle duality of quantum physics: Physical objects, at the

quantum level, seem to possess both local, reductionist particle and

nonlocal, holistic wave properties that become manifest depending on

whether the position or wavelength of the object is measured.

The two types of properties, wave and particle, are said to be

incompatible. Measurement of one quantity will in general affect the

value the other quantity will have in a future measurement. Furthermore,

the value to be obtained in the future measurement is undetermined; that

is, it is unpredictable-although the statistical distribution of an

ensemble of similar measurements remains predictable. In this way,

quantum mechanics obtains its indeterministic quality, usually expressed

in terms of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In general, the

mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics can only predict statistical

distributions.5

Despite wave-particle duality, the particle picture is maintained in

most quantum mechanical applications. Atoms, nuclei, electrons, and

quarks are all regarded as particles at some level. At the same time,

classical " waves " such as those of light and sound are replaced by

localized photons and phonons, respectively, when quantum effects must

be considered.

In conventional quantum mechanics, the wave properties of particles are

formally represented by a mathematical quantity called the wave

function, used to compute the probability that the particle will be

found at a particular position. When a measurement is made, and its

position is then known with greater accuracy, the wave function is said

to " collapse, " as illustrated in Figure 1.

[Figure found at site]

Einstein never liked the notion of wave function collapse, calling it a

" spooky action at a distance. " In Figure 1, a signal would appear to

propagate with infinite speed from A to B to tell the wave function to

collapse to zero at B once the particle has been detected at A. Indeed,

this signal must propagate at infinite speed throughout the universe

since, prior to detection, the electron could in principle have been

detected anywhere.

This surely violates Einstein's assertion that no signals can move

faster than the speed of light.

Although they are usually not so explicit, quantum mystics seem to

interpret the wave function as some kind of vibration of a holistic

ether that pervades the universe, as " real " as the vibration in air we

call a sound wave. Wave function collapse, in their view, happens

instantaneously throughout the universe by a willful act of cosmic

consciousness.

In their book The Conscious Universe, Menas Kafatos and Nadeau

identify the wave function with " Being-In-Itself " :

One could then conclude that Being, in its physical analogue at

least, had been " revealed " in the wave function. . . . [A]ny sense we

have of profound unity with the cosmos . . . could be presumed to

correlate with the action of the deterministic wave function . . . .

(Kafatos and Nadeau 1990, 124)

Thus they follow Capra in imagining that quantum mechanics unites mind

with the universe. But our inner sense of " profound unity with the

cosmos " is hardly scientific evidence.

The conventional interpretation of quantum mechanics, promulgated by

Bohr and still held by most physicists, says nothing about

consciousness. It concerns only what can be measured and what

predictions can be made about the statistical distributions of ensembles

of future measurements. As noted, the wave function is simply a

mathematical object used to calculate probabilities. Mathematical

constructs can be as magical as any other figment of the human

imagination-like the Starship Enterprise or a Roadrunner cartoon.

Nowhere does quantum mechanics imply that real matter or signals travel

faster than light. In fact, superluminal signal propagation has been

proven to be impossible in any theory consistent with conventional

relativity and quantum mechanics (Eberhard and Ross 1989).

[Guest guest]

On 8/22/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

>

> >

> >Hmm. Maybe I'm reading too much into this here, but I think there is

> >a sort of " metaphor " or something similar in atomic/molecular theory

> >with respect to electrons. Just look at molecular orbital theory and

> >the classic (forgot the name!) paradigm-- totally different views

> >about how electrons are arranged, but both are used, depending on the

> >situation. They're, to some degree, theoretical constructs that are

> >in some sense, sort of similar to metaphor.

> >

> Kinda sorta maybe. Not. Physicists, including Cal tech Nobel laureate

> Murray Gell-Mann have called this " quantum flapdoodle. " You ought to

> read that great book I sent you by Greene, _The Fabric of the

> Cosmos_; if you haven't, that is.

Have called what " quantum flapdoodle? " Molecular Orbital theory?

VESPR? And what does " flapdoodle " mean?

I've read part of the Greene book, but at various points I've

gotten distracted, so I'm pushing along slowly with it.

> And funny thing: the explanation by this physicist (Victor Stenger,

> outspoken atheist <gasp>) quoted below brings up the Starship

> Enterprise. It is funny because that Doug on brings in the word

> " warp " into his mystical adventures through the

> Time-Space-Continuum-Warp. Only Star Trek uses such jargon. Is it any

> wonder that China and Europe are surpassing the US in science? The New

> Age mystics all want a piece of the quantum pie, only they often don't

> understand nor do they have any interest in the equations behind it

> all. It's all fuzzy to them. And Schrodinger's equation is a bitch,

> what with the partial derivatives and all. - Deanna

Now I don't even know what we're talking about. I was talking about

accepted electron theories and you are now talking about Doug

on?

> http://www.csicop.org/si/9701/quantum-quackery.html

> Wave-Particle Duality

> Quantum mechanics is thought, even by many physicists, to be suffused

> with mysteries and paradoxes. Mystics seize upon these to support their

> views. The source of most of these claims can be traced to the so-called

> wave-particle duality of quantum physics: Physical objects, at the

> quantum level, seem to possess both local, reductionist particle and

> nonlocal, holistic wave properties that become manifest depending on

> whether the position or wavelength of the object is measured.

That's not what I as talking about. (?)

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

>

>That's not what I as talking about. (?)

>

>

Well, if you are interested, then why don't you explain better what you

were taking about. When you speak of molecular orbital theory and how

electrons are arranged, then I think of the quantum mechanics of

bonding. You said:

" Just look at molecular orbital theory and the classic (forgot the

name!) paradigm-- totally different views

about how electrons are arranged, but both are used, depending on the

situation. They're, to some degree, theoretical constructs that are in

some sense, sort of similar to metaphor. "

So, perhaps I didn't spell it out clearly (nor did you). Electrons

exhibit duality of wave and particle. I already mentioned Schrodinger's

wave equation. Max Planck laid the ground work with quantum theory for

electromagnetic radiation, demonstrating quanta. Then Debroglie comes

along looking for a solution for the Bohr model problem of fixed orbital

distances. Low and behold he found that electrons bound to nuclei

behave like standing waves, and Planck's constant fits in all groovy

with his equation. This has been demonstrated in the lab, btw, and we

can thank all of these great physicist giants that have advanced the

subject of chemistry. All of the men listed here are PHYSICISTS. The

electron microscope is a direct application of the wavelike properties

of electrons. Since the energy of the electron depends on the radius of

it's orbit, it's value is quantized. Electrons, electromagnetic

radiation, and matter - they *do* exhibit both wave and particle

properties. As a result we have the Heisenberg uncertainty principle,

which shows you can't know both the momentum (mass times the velocity)

and the position at the same time with certainty.

Any reference to metaphor is hogwash, aka quantum flapdoodle. Physics

envy. That's what Shermer calls it. The mystics want to lend

credibility to their systems to lull an ever more gullible audience to

pay big bucks for their hocus pocus therapies. So they try to adopt

that which they do not understand, but which *IS* scientific, like

electronics and quantum mechanics. They fail miserably but the ignorant

subjects remain blissfully subservient. It is the same with Intelligent

Design, which is nothing more than Paley's teleological argument for the

existence of God, all wrapped up in scientific jargon. Belief in God

(or chakras or insert here your choice) is great if you want it, but you

cannot demonstrate God in the lab. Attempting it must be Sacrilegious

or something.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 8/22/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Well, if you are interested, then why don't you explain better what you

> were taking about. When you speak of molecular orbital theory and how

> electrons are arranged, then I think of the quantum mechanics of

> bonding. You said:

>

> " Just look at molecular orbital theory and the classic (forgot the

> name!) paradigm-- totally different views

> about how electrons are arranged, but both are used, depending on the

> situation. They're, to some degree, theoretical constructs that are in

> some sense, sort of similar to metaphor. "

>

> So, perhaps I didn't spell it out clearly (nor did you). Electrons

> exhibit duality of wave and particle.

Yeah, I know that... I guess there is some, sort of, overlap to what

I'm talking about, but not really. I'm talking about molecular

orbital theory and valence bond theory. Valence bond theory is the

classic view where electrons of a bond are localized at the binding

site (not meaning not moving, but specific properties of that bond),

whereas molecular orbital theory views s and p orbitals as combining

and forming a delocalized *molecular* orbital that is a property of

the molecule as a whole rather than its component atoms or bonds.

I guess this is more the domain of chemistry than of physics, in which

case I'm probably not the best one to explain it, having not used it

for so long. But what I'm saying is that both paradigms are used and

are useful. Valence bond resonance theory works fine mathematically,

but the results make no intuitive sense. Molecular orbital theory can

explain resonance with equal success but in a different way.

I don't think there's any true " metaphor " involved per se, but in a

sense there is something *kind of like* metaphor that is used to help

us visualize things that really aren't visualizable.

> Any reference to metaphor is hogwash, aka quantum flapdoodle. Physics

> envy. That's what Shermer calls it.

Well that's stupid, and I'm not sure how you can call something

" hogwash " when you don't even appear to know what it is I'm talking

about.

> The mystics want to lend

> credibility to their systems to lull an ever more gullible audience to

> pay big bucks for their hocus pocus therapies.

Do you see how ridiculously irrelevant this is to my post? Am I a

mystic? Am I speaking to a gullible audience? Do I have any hocus

pocus therapies that cost big bucks?

Obviously not. So how is it that you can go on about this when it so

clearly has nothing to do with my post?

> So they try to adopt

> that which they do not understand, but which *IS* scientific, like

> electronics and quantum mechanics. They fail miserably but the ignorant

> subjects remain blissfully subservient. It is the same with Intelligent

> Design, which is nothing more than Paley's teleological argument for the

> existence of God, all wrapped up in scientific jargon. Belief in God

> (or chakras or insert here your choice) is great if you want it, but you

> cannot demonstrate God in the lab. Attempting it must be Sacrilegious

> or something.

Still clueless as to what we're (or you're) talking about.

Chris

--

Want the other side of the cholesterol story?

Find out what your doctor isn't telling you:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>That's pretty sick,

>alrighty.

I'm just catching up on a couple days' worth of posts, and I see that

things have gotten a bit more testy than I thought. I'd appreciate it if

everyone would refrain from personal attacks of any kind.

-