What the bleep do we know?

Avo

The sexy
Nov 19, 2004
2,768
138
0
#3
description in the link said:
The film has received widespread criticism from the scientific community. Physicists, in particular, claim that the film grossly misrepresents the meaning of various principles of quantum mechanics, and is in fact pseudoscience.
If it has received bad rep by the scientific community, then I pass trying to understand this video.
 

camjoe87

Alcohol Dehydrogenase
Jul 24, 2005
2,336
0
0
31
#4
B

bunions

#5
Camjoe, I don't exactly know what you are calling bullshit. What is psuedo science another label we are gonna slap on people that you don't agree with? Along with pool of other bashing terms: cultist, naive, religious, addict of the masses? I'm sure that the movie has SOME of the directors own views thrown in there but he does a good job at keep some facts right. After all, it is HIS documentary. The first link you posted to attempt at discrediting the entire film is 10x more irrational than the move! The writer start by saying pretty much not only was it a bad film with some bad facts, but the facts were ridiculously funny. He supports his argument with pointless and redundant facts that even a 13 year old could figure out. He says that the movie attempts to fill the unknown with a supernatural-"But it’s just a consciousness-of-the-gaps explanation: we can’t explain it so it must be consciousness." Wtf is that crap? He made it sound as if there's a bunch of dumb ass scientists came up to that conclusion at a desperate attempt of seducing the public. OBVIOUSLY this film is not a dictionary definition of quantum theory. Anyone with a basic understanding of this would have realized that as soon as they said that sub atomic particles are like 'thoughts.' Does it mean they are a bunch of morons and discredit the whole damn thing? NO. In the film, they also mentioned that they aren't going to tell you what to believe and what not to believe. They presented the facts and theories of their own. They offered that to the viewer! Does that mean it's 'psuedoscience?' no! they aren't promising anything. It's all THEORY. psuedo means false, and you can't prove their claims as false.
 

camjoe87

Alcohol Dehydrogenase
Jul 24, 2005
2,336
0
0
31
#6
Okay, so it may not be "false" science, but it sure is hell isn't good science...

For example.

The power of thoughts on water

"If thoughts can do that to water, imagine what our thoughts can do to us" observed a fan of Dr Masaru Emoto in the movie.

Dr Emoto takes photos of crystals formed in freezing water. According to his books, water exposed to loving words shows brilliant and attractive patterns, while water exposed to negative thoughts forms incomplete patterns. These photos may well be art - they're sure as hell not science.

If you wanted to study the impact of spoken, drawn or written sentiments on the formation of crystals in freezing water, you'd have to do a slightly more rigorous study. For starters you'd have to take a lot of samples from different parts of each ice specimen. And you'd do the study without knowing what had been 'said' to the water specimens, so your subjective opinions wouldn't colour the results.

Magician and skeptic James Randi, famous for debunking performers like Uri Geller, has offered his standard prize of $1 million cash money to Dr Emoto if he can get the same results when doing the water study this way. To date, Dr Emoto has not taken up the challenge. He has however just released his third book of pretty crystal pictures.
The movie states humans are "90% water" when in fact newborns have around 78%, 1-year-olds around 65%, adult men about 60%, and adult women around 55%.

The movie also relates a story about Native Americans being unable to see Christopher Columbus' ships. However, there is no mention of this in any of the journals of those voyages, and the oral traditions of the Native Americans were lost in the following 150 years of Spanish rule. None of the people that Columbus first encountered—the Arawaks—had any descendants survive into recent times, so it is uncertain what their experience was.

The animated sequence showing electrical signals moving directly across a synaptic cleft is misleading. Signals are in fact carried between neurons chemically via neurotransmitters; signals are propagated electrically only within individual neurons and via gap junctions.

It is also claimed in the movie that 20 amino acids are created in the human body. However, only 12 can be synthesized by humans; the remaining 8 amino acids are considered essential and must be acquired from consuming food.
Sounds like bad science to me ..

The big problem I have with the movie is the fact they do not present the whole theory in a very fair and balanced way. It's nothing more than a fantasy docudrama ... Just because quantam mechanics may seem like a mystical thing .. doesn't mean it is. The microscopic world does not exactly work the same way as the macroscopic world. Whatever..

You're right, it's just a movie anyway .. Shouldn't care too much I guess.
 
Last edited:
Nov 10, 2006
40
0
0
#7
The documentry was clearly controversial and controversial > attention > Viewers > Money

I don't like it when people mix sci-fi or baseless theories with science.
 
Oct 20, 2004
3,364
9
0
#9