Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Aten34

Science may have proof of psychic abilities

1,186 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

stereologist
8 minutes ago, Ankhael said:

Oh yeah, yes you did, that's why I brought up the radio fungi research. And then you started "so, only the fungi can do it, humans can't". You remember that.

No. You are a liar. You lie about everything.

I never suggested that this did not happen: "melanin converts the absorb energy into chemical useful energy"

I pointed out that it did happen in radiosynthesis. So I did suggest that melanin can absorb energy that can be utilized. Therefore you lied - AGAIN!

I also pointed out that it is happening in a kingdom unrelated to animals and there was no evidence it happens in animals.

Remember that or have you told so many lies you will never things straight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Ankhael
26 minutes ago, stereologist said:

No. You are a liar. You lie about everything.

I never suggested that this did not happen: "melanin converts the absorb energy into chemical useful energy"

I pointed out that it did happen in radiosynthesis. So I did suggest that melanin can absorb energy that can be utilized. Therefore you lied - AGAIN!

I also pointed out that it is happening in a kingdom unrelated to animals and there was no evidence it happens in animals.

Remember that or have you told so many lies you will never things straight?

Yeah after told you about the radio fungi then you started to learn. I'll quote you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
25 minutes ago, Ankhael said:

Yeah after told you about the radio fungi then you started to learn. I'll quote you

You made a claim and I asked you to prove it.

Then you got the paper wrong. You couldn't read and understand the paper. You made a number of false claims, things that were not in the paper just like you did with the Meredith paper.

For example, you called the process photosynthesis despite the paper labeling it radiosynthesis. The difference is that photosynthesis is a well known and well established chemical process that harvests solar energy in a manner that is not destructive of the materials involved. That well studied process is what the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera states is wrong.

Make sure you provide the post number because I know that purposely misrepresenting my posts is done by you all of the time and I expect you to do that again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael
36 minutes ago, stereologist said:

So you admit you are a liar and the things you claim were in the paper are not. Once again you admit you lied about Meredith's paper.

Here is another of your stupid lies: "Molecular gases appears in all methods of water splitting"

I've already proved that the formation of molecular gasses from water takes a huge amount of energy which is not available from melanin.

 

Lol I'm starting to believe you know anything about chemistry Lmao.

Again I didn't admit anything, you know you lost the debate so you trying to cause confusion lmao

And it does take alot of energy, thats why Meredith stated that photosynthesis method is more efficient , and the sun can supply the necessary energy needs, and melanin is cost efficient as well thats why he's focus on melanin more than any other material.

4956374001142214551%253Faccount_id%253D0

See H2 and O2 becomes hydronium and hydroxide after splitting.

 

See using solar power the O2 gas and H2 gas is forming on the pencils

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael
5 minutes ago, stereologist said:

You made a claim and I asked you to prove it.

Then you got the paper wrong. You couldn't read and understand the paper. You made a number of false claims, things that were not in the paper just like you did with the Meredith paper.

For example, you called the process photosynthesis despite the paper labeling it radiosynthesis. The difference is that photosynthesis is a well known and well established chemical process that harvests solar energy in a manner that is not destructive of the materials involved. That well studied process is what the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera states is wrong.

Make sure you provide the post number because I know that purposely misrepresenting my posts is done by you all of the time and I expect you to do that again.

I know the differences thank you

and i'll prove it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, Ankhael said:

Lol I'm starting to believe you know anything about chemistry Lmao.

Again I didn't admit anything, you know you lost the debate so you trying to cause confusion lmao

And it does take alot of energy, thats why Meredith stated that photosynthesis method is more efficient , and the sun can supply the necessary energy needs, and melanin is cost efficient as well thats why he's focus on melanin more than any other material.

 

See H2 and O2 becomes hydronium and hydroxide after splitting.

 

See using solar power the O2 gas and H2 gas is forming on the pencils

 

 

The energy supplied in these experiments far exceeds the energy available from the melanin situation in Meredith's paper.  These videos do not show the energy requirements which is the key issue. Therefore your videos are as you are completely worthless.

You have lost the debate through your basic ignorance  which is of course no surprise. You've been wrong the entire step of the way.

Why is there no molecular gasses in the Meredith paper? The answer is simple there isn't sufficient energy to accomplish that. The only thing melanin is able to do is to increase the dissociation in the water which happens spontaneously. That is why water is pH 7 - it spontaneously autodissociates to form hydroniums and hydroxyls and cannot form molecular gasses of hydrogen and oxygen.

Once again you are foolishly ignorant of the facts.

Let's take a look at water splitting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting

Quote

Efficient and economical photochemical water splitting would be a technological breakthrough that could underpin a hydrogen economy. A version of water splitting occurs in photosynthesis, but hydrogen is not produced. No practical version of water splitting has been demonstrated, but the two component reactions (H2 production and O2 production) are well known. The reverse of water splitting is the basis of the hydrogen fuel cell.

As I have tried to tell you multiple times without success the energy in to split the water is exactly the same energy released when recombined.

This site also clears up your ignorance over what constitutes photosynthesis. It is not what you have been labeling as photosynthesis.

Quote

Research is being conducted over photocatalysis,[17][18] the acceleration of a photoreaction in the presence of a catalyst. Its comprehension has been made possible ever since the discovery of water electrolysis by means of the titanium dioxide. Artificial photosynthesis is a research field that attempts to replicate the natural process of photosynthesis, converting sunlight, water and carbon dioxide into carbohydrates and oxygen. Recently, this has been successful in splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using an artificial compound called Nafion.

When we go to electrolysis of water we learn:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water

Quote

The electrolysis of water in standard conditions requires a theoretical minimum of 237 kJ of electrical energy input to dissociate each mole of water, which is the standard Gibbs free energy of formation of water. It also requires energy to overcome the change in entropy of the reaction. Therefore, the process cannot proceed below 286 kJ per mol if no external heat/energy is added.

That by far exceeds the energy available in the photo irradiated melanin situation. 

Once again you are shown to be extremely ignorant of the issues being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, Ankhael said:

I know the differences thank you

and i'll prove it.

You made a claim and I asked you to prove it.

Then you got the paper wrong. You couldn't read and understand the paper. You made a number of false claims, things that were not in the paper just like you did with the Meredith paper.

For example, you called the process photosynthesis despite the paper labeling it radiosynthesis. The difference is that photosynthesis is a well known and well established chemical process that harvests solar energy in a manner that is not destructive of the materials involved. That well studied process is what the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera states is wrong.

Make sure you provide the post number because I know that purposely misrepresenting my posts is done by you all of the time and I expect you to do that again.

Do you know the difference? Of course you don't. You have used the term photosynthesis to describe a large range of issues and none were photosynthesis.

And don't forget the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera states that all of science has it wrong about photosynthesis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael
On 2/2/2019 at 2:57 PM, stereologist said:

post #282   

3. You wrote "melanin as also been shown to absorb these electromagnetic waves" Where does it state that?

7. Here is another suggestion which appears to  be false "Melanin also have the ability to absorb Electromagnetic Radiation (waves), (sinusoidal) and turn it into chemicals energy and possibly electrical energy,"

Me proving you wrong post# 286

On 2/2/2019 at 5:46 PM, Ankhael said:

@stereologist

Maybe this might clear things up, why don't look at that since its hard for you understand an abstract https://sciencewriter.org/dark-power/ Melanin has the ability to absorb electromagnetic Radiation.

Edited to remove me quoting that big clutter response.

also  prove you in post #295

On 2/2/2019 at 7:55 PM, Ankhael said:

@stereologist

Lets deal with, lets deal with @Aten34

Ok stereologist, so you think i didn't read the article/abstract correctly, but you clearly didn't read right, because if you would have clearly from gecko, from start of the article it clearly states that melanin responds to EMF-ELF. which is a non visible electromagnetic field. Light itself is considered to carry a visible electromagnetic field, because we can see it. Our body can absorb it without looking it.

I bet you felt special tryin to make me look like a fool, let me break this down in small  intervals because giving you alot of information is obviously so overwhelming that you can't process things and obviously over look them. But thats my fault.

ELF (extremely low frequency) refers to an electromagnetic field having a frequency much lower than the frequencies of signals typically used in communications (radios). Which clearly States in the abstract that melanin can react to. Its a non visible electromagnetic wave (sinusoid - means have a form of sine wave. Which Electromagnetic frequencies carry, frequencies carry a sinusoidal wave.

CONCLUSION of the abstract: "We have demonstrated that ELF-EMFs can induce melanogenesis in melanocytes." So yes melanin can absorb EMF-ELF waves.

Wikipedia - In the human skin, melanogenesis is initiated by exposure to UV radiation, causing the skin to darken. Melanin is an effective absorbent of light; the pigment is able to dissipate over 99.9% of absorbed UV radiation. Because of this property, melanin is thought to protect skin cells from UVB radiation damage, reducing the risk of cancer, and it is considered that exposure to UV radiation is associated with increased risk of malignant melanoma, a cancer of melanocytes (melanin cells). Studies have shown a lower incidence for skin cancer in individuals with more concentrated melanin, i.e. darker skin tone. 

 

 

 

in post# 309  you said this. which proves you didn't know

On 2/3/2019 at 12:38 AM, stereologist said:

The conclusion is that " We have demonstrated that ELF-EMFs can induce melanogenesis in melanocytes. " That does not mean melanin can absorb ELF-EMF radiation. Even if it does - so what?

Then you post something about melanin which is well known. So what?

 

you said this in post #328

you posted this link after already shown this info in another link, in post #286

On 2/3/2019 at 2:16 PM, stereologist said:

There is an article about a fungus appearing to use melanin to obtain energy to grow from radioactive sources. An MIT review is here. Remember that fungi are in a completely different kingdom than us. We are holoza and they are fungi. Animals are very different in structure from fungi. Also notice that the MIT review article says there is a possibility.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/407974/eating-radiation-a-new-form-of-energy/

 

Here is the post you stated that melanin couldn't transform the EM energy into useful energy. in post# 

On 2/3/2019 at 9:27 PM, stereologist said:

The idea that it converts the radiation into other sources of energy is pretty much false. Melanin absorbing UV for example does not mean it is used. The fact is that any absorption of incident radiation by animals is rarely converted into useful energy by animals.

Why do you continue to repeat the same mistakes post after post?

 

here is where you was in complete disbelieve about melanin dissociating the water molecule in post # 352

On 2/4/2019 at 9:49 AM, stereologist said:

His ludicrous claim is that a water molecule can be broken by melanin to produce energy and recombined to produce more energy. This is clearly a joke situation as revealed by the law of conservation of energy.

 

heres another one in post #412

On 2/8/2019 at 1:44 PM, stereologist said:

The claim of melanin dissociating water is a made up story. It fooled you.

 

These post is obviously showing you hardly knew about melanin's ability and denied that it can convert the energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael
49 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The energy supplied in these experiments far exceeds the energy available from the melanin situation in Meredith's paper.  These videos do not show the energy requirements which is the key issue. Therefore your videos are as you are completely worthless.

You have lost the debate through your basic ignorance  which is of course no surprise. You've been wrong the entire step of the way.

Why is there no molecular gasses in the Meredith paper? The answer is simple there isn't sufficient energy to accomplish that. The only thing melanin is able to do is to increase the dissociation in the water which happens spontaneously. That is why water is pH 7 - it spontaneously autodissociates to form hydroniums and hydroxyls and cannot form molecular gasses of hydrogen and oxygen.

Once again you are foolishly ignorant of the facts.

And this where you are sooooo. wrong, I share those videos to show that as the water was split O2 and H2  gases formed you can see the bubbles in the water .

and you obviously don"t know that Hydronium and hydroxide are formed by the O2 and H2 gases. the gases form first then later becomes Hydronium and hydroxide.

 

I proved you that melanin dissociates the water molecule which in past post you said  was false.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ouija ouija

48 pages and you guys are still going at it! I hope it's worth it. :unsure:

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

48 pages of bickering, hostility and personal insults - I think this thread has run its course.

Closed.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.