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
7 hours ago, Ankhael said:

Science do not yet hold the answers.

Example:

what are thoughts and dreams? 

Can we see them under a microscope?

Are they cells?

Science has no definitive answer to dreams and thought but we know they are real because we experience them. We use the Science of psychology to try to answer those things but its still speculative even a psychologist professor would say that that's what psychology all about constant learning, there never a definitive answer to the human mind

Perfect example.

 

Science holds all of the answers for reality.

What are thoughts and dreams? They are being studied by science. If you don;t know that then go to school. Can you see them under a microscope? Yes.If you do not know what type of microscope then go to school.

Are they cells you ask? Why not go to school and learn how real scientists are studying thoughts and dreams.

No, the work is not just done by psychology. It is done by other scientists as well.

Your perfect example is a blunder based on your ignorance.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 hours ago, Ankhael said:

Ok what have we lied about?

We kept our speculation separate from what we presented to you as fact. Because we wanted to show you that our theory was base on science facts that already existed. We never said anything of the speculation at the start of this thread was fact.

Everytime the thread was derailed, we argued with facts outside our theory. Presenting source.

The list is very long so I will only give you a partial list.

Repeated lies

1.        That I did not prove Arturo Herrerra is a liar and fraud.

2.        The lie that all articles in PubMed are peer reviewed.

3.       The lie that papers outside of the fake papers by Herrerra show melanin dissociates water into hydrogen and oxygen.

4.       The lie that none of the Spanish links rejected Arturo Herrerra as a liar and fraud – 100% of them did

5.       The lie that all species with melanin can radiosynthesize

6.       The lie that humans can transmit signals via modulated signals

7.       The lie that melanin can capture signals, not just absorbs EM

8.       The lie that a government listing service certifies some research

9.       The lie that any of Arturo Herrerras papers are peer reviewed

 

This is a very short list.

Your claims are not based on science facts, but on lies about science.

You lie about the chemistry of melanin in nearly every post. You lie about the meaning of words in nearly every post. You make ridiculous illogical constructs in many posts.

Why can't you get the science facts right? My guess is that you have no background at all in basic concepts such as chemistry, math, biology, electrical engineering, physics, and basically everything being discussed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 hours ago, Aten34 said:

 

Ball lighting is another thing science can't explain...

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

 

If you want a list of things science cannot explain that would be simple. That has no bearing on whether or not the issues here are decidable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 hours ago, Aten34 said:

LOL you might as well leave it alone. he in his feelings

You are the biggest liar in the thread. You've done nothing but lie.

I guess that is the only coping mechanism you have being as incompetent and uneducated as you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
6 hours ago, Ankhael said:

@stereologist

I Found some quotes from Meredith and his team on Melanin being a potential "communicator" between biology and technology. Maybe this may target your wonder about my "proton(ic)" "electron(ic)" language theory.

Honestly this should make you how much they invested time, money research into melanin, i wouldn't call useless if I where you.

 

 

JUST A FUN SPECULATION 

So you see if the biology electrical communication system is base on mostly Proton(ic) conduction of electricity and technology electrical communication is base on Electron(ic) conduction of electricity. Then maybe there is a language specific to them, like "frequencies" at certain output erc. Via wireless information EM waves

What if our brain waves vs radio waves. Like this article that says that they are drastically different.  Except the superconductor (SQUID) device that pick up a little waves from humans. https://engineering.mit.edu/engage/ask-an-engineer/can-brain-waves-interfere-with-radio-waves/

 

What if biology and technology electrical communication is Different because of their way of conducting electrical energy that's polarized from each other. One being proton(ic) the other being electron(ic).

Just a fun speculation, even if I'm wrong.

You really are as clueless about electricity as you suggest. You need to look up how electricity works and operates and how it is explained by EM theory.

You'd realize on the first day of class that this protonic blather of yours is nonsense.

This shows a complete lack of education and lack of even the most understanding of electricity when you go off on your mindless protonic mumblings.

The actions of protons and electrons as charged particles produce exactly the same EM waves.

OMG, you can't read can you?

Here is what the article states. I know that but you don't seem to know what you link states.

Quote

Radio waves and brain waves are both forms of electromagnetic radiation — waves of energy that travel at the speed of light.

Like I keep telling you and telling you and telling you. What we experience is mainly EM in form. Brain waves are EM waves.

Not only that but the article stats what I have been saying all along.

Quote

Brain waves are too slow, and so weak they’re extremely hard to measure…

The EM output by a person can be detected and measured. Scientists know what a human generates.

Your ridiculous speculation that "What if biology and technology electrical communication is Different because of their way of conducting electrical energy that's polarized from each other. One being proton(ic) the other being electron(ic)." is completely rejected by the article you linked to.

It is a simple fact that there is one EM spectrum and all charged particles emit the same type of EM.

The article rejects your amusing mumblings

Quote

The difference between brain waves, radio waves, and other electromagnetic waves (such as visible light, X-rays, and Gamma rays) lies in their frequency — that is, how often the waves peak and trough in a second.

The article backs up my statement that we can measure the signals that come out of a human.

Quote

Hard to measure, but not impossible. MIT recently installed a new MEG scanner to study the function of the human brain. To capture brain signals, the MEG scanner is in a room shielded with mu metal, a special alloy that blocks external magnetic fields. “Like a rock in the middle of a river, this metal forces all electromagnetic signals to flow around the room and doesn’t let any inside,” says Pantazis.

There is nothing in the article supporting your delusional claptrap about protons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
9 hours ago, Aten34 said:

If you don't like the theory...kick rocks

Don't know where you get that from...weird

The body is piezoelectric...smh

Repeating nonsense does not change the fact that you are spouting nonsense.

It is becoming clearer that the problem lies in the ability to read and comprehend.

I believe the idea that there is an inability to read and comprehends has gone from concept, to clear evidence, and is now a fact.

There are also the obvious lies such as fake quotes, the purposeful misrepresentations, and the constant moving of the goal posts.

Share this post


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

The list is very long so I will only give you a partial list.

Repeated lies

1.        That I did not prove Arturo Herrerra is a liar and fraud.

2.        The lie that all articles in PubMed are peer reviewed.

3.       The lie that papers outside of the fake papers by Herrerra show melanin dissociates water into hydrogen and oxygen.

4.       The lie that none of the Spanish links rejected Arturo Herrerra as a liar and fraud – 100% of them did

5.       The lie that all species with melanin can radiosynthesize

6.       The lie that humans can transmit signals via modulated signals

7.       The lie that melanin can capture signals, not just absorbs EM

8.       The lie that a government listing service certifies some research

9.       The lie that any of Arturo Herrerras papers are peer reviewed

 

This is a very short list.

Your claims are not based on science facts, but on lies about science.

You lie about the chemistry of melanin in nearly every post. You lie about the meaning of words in nearly every post. You make ridiculous illogical constructs in many posts.

Why can't you get the science facts right? My guess is that you have no background at all in basic concepts such as chemistry, math, biology, electrical engineering, physics, and basically everything being discussed.

 

We have prove this whole list except for 7, we actually wasn't trying to prove 7, because that was just speculation.

we showed that Pubmed list only peer review articles per their listing approval policies, and yet you still deny it. And yes  government  listing service does certify research, especially when wikipedia and many medical school rely on those studies for education purposes. Most Universities in the US is funded by the US Education Dept. So they are going to assure that the research they list is reliable. I'm sure your friend on that wiki fandom page would agree, seeing how he only suggest not believe arturo because he work wasn't listed on Pubmed at the time, which it is now lol. he might as well delete the page now lol.

we proved to you that melanin is  photovoltaic, photocatalytic, materials which we know we common sense can be used in water splitting application, melanin has a number if ways it can be used to split water. Doesn't take Arturo research to prove you that. I even used  Paul Meredith whom you respect as a scientist, hes already invented melanin solar cells for such application, its absolutely unrefutable. You looking for words that says "Melanin can dissociate the water molecule". you have to use critical logical thinking when you read the papers we present to you. Used context clues, remember that back in school.

We showed you his research was peer review by publisher Springer, and they are listed on Pubmed, also Paul Meredith have even reference a paper from Springer in one his papers, of course it wasn't Arturo, but nevertheless it goes to show you Paul Meredith trust the publisher enough to reference a paper from them. There absolutely no indication of springer being bad.

Share this post


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

Repeating nonsense does not change the fact that you are spouting nonsense.

It is becoming clearer that the problem lies in the ability to read and comprehend.

I believe the idea that there is an inability to read and comprehends has gone from concept, to clear evidence, and is now a fact.

There are also the obvious lies such as fake quotes, the purposeful misrepresentations, and the constant moving of the goal posts.

Actually the body is piezoelectric

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity#Bone

even melanin

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17543514  Melanin

There is even technology being made to harvest human energy into devices from the muscles piezoelectric affect. 

Beside that honestly this could explain why in Chinese and  Indian cultures yoga and tai chi promotes the movement of the body promote chi energy or prana. They may not link but it certainly interesting

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/577004 Piezoelectricity Yoga 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael
3 hours ago, stereologist said:

You really are as clueless about electricity as you suggest. You need to look up how electricity works and operates and how it is explained by EM theory.

You'd realize on the first day of class that this protonic blather of yours is nonsense.

This shows a complete lack of education and lack of even the most understanding of electricity when you go off on your mindless protonic mumblings.

The actions of protons and electrons as charged particles produce exactly the same EM waves.

OMG, you can't read can you?

Here is what the article states. I know that but you don't seem to know what you link states.

Like I keep telling you and telling you and telling you. What we experience is mainly EM in form. Brain waves are EM waves.

Not only that but the article stats what I have been saying all along.

The EM output by a person can be detected and measured. Scientists know what a human generates.

Your ridiculous speculation that "What if biology and technology electrical communication is Different because of their way of conducting electrical energy that's polarized from each other. One being proton(ic) the other being electron(ic)." is completely rejected by the article you linked to.

It is a simple fact that there is one EM spectrum and all charged particles emit the same type of EM.

The article rejects your amusing mumblings

The article backs up my statement that we can measure the signals that come out of a human.

There is nothing in the article supporting your delusional claptrap about protons.

Lol Wow man you keeping up with these insults, I'm starting think that is your area of expertise lol. Calm down before you bring the Moderate back lmao. Its just a chat wow your so serious, you say your not in your feelings but how you insult people says differently, lmao are you that intimidated by us that you always have to state in every post that your more intelligent than us and that we are stupid fool or idiots? We just free thinkers its nothing wrong with, this how scientists discover new things, by not being afraid of asking questions. Relax stereologist Seem like you are obsessed with knowing more than other lol no offense but you say it in almost all your post lmao

You keeping hanging on to this like I'm saying it true lol. I have a fair knowledge how electricity works ok. Its just a theory ok and for your info protonic conduction is not a common use as many are still trying to develope better Applications use. And how do know for sure that they have tested the electromagnetic field of protonic conduction. You don't know for sure, tour not an expert on the matter. I'm not saying any of what i am saying it true get it.

And again I never said anything of that article we supported my speculation. You say you have observations but surely you don't when it come to reading others post lmao. I just made a Speculation based off things I've read in Paul Meredith articles. He noted that melanin could be one of the links between technological and biological communication. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael

@stereologist

Here check this out you might find this interesting 

This is one of the methods Meredith is doing with melanin

  protonic conductor - is an electrolyte, typically a solid electrolyte, in which H+ are the primary charge carriers. 

Acid solutions exhibit proton-conductivity, but for practical applications, proton conductors are usually dry solids. Typical materials are polymers or ceramic. Typically, the pores in practical materials are small such that protons dominate direct current and transport of cations or bulk solvent is prevented. 

When in the form of thin membranes, proton conductors are an essential part of small, inexpensive fuel cells. The polymer nafion is a typical proton conductor in fuel cells. A jelly-like substance similar to nafion residing in the ampullae of Lorenzini of sharks has proton conductivity only slightly lower than nafion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_conductor

 

H+ hydron become hydronium - The hydron (a completely free or "naked" hydrogen atomic nucleus) is too reactive to occur in many liquids, even though it is sometimes visualized to do so by students of chemistry. A free hydron would react with a molecule of the liquid to form a more complicated cation. Examples are the hydronium ion in water-based acids, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydron_(chemistry)

 

Proton-exchange membrane fuel cells,  also known as polymer electrolyte membrane(PEM) fuel cells (PEMFC), are a type of fuel cell being developed mainly for transport applications, as well as for stationary fuel-cell applications and portable fuel-cell applications. Their distinguishing features include lower temperature/pressure ranges (50 to 100 °C) and a special proton-conducting polymer electrolyte membrane. PEMFCs generate electricity and operate on the opposite principle to PEM electrolysis, which consumes electricity. They are a leading candidate to replace the aging alkaline fuel-cell technology, which was used in the Space Shuttle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-exchange_membrane_fuel_cell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael
18 hours ago, stereologist said:

Science holds all of the answers for reality.

What are thoughts and dreams? They are being studied by science. If you don;t know that then go to school. Can you see them under a microscope? Yes.If you do not know what type of microscope then go to school.

Are they cells you ask? Why not go to school and learn how real scientists are studying thoughts and dreams.

No, the work is not just done by psychology. It is done by other scientists as well.

Your perfect example is a blunder based on your ignorance.

Show me source where they could see a dream under a microscope.

And those scientists might have ideas you call psuedo science 

Blunder about what?,what I'm saying correct, surely that would have a public feat if scientists figured out what dreams where and seeing under a microscope, it must be a Secret its not Publish anywhere that I know. Not even a wikipedia page article. So where you getting this info and what school you went to lmao

Science do not have all the answers yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aten34
20 hours ago, stereologist said:

Repeating nonsense does not change the fact that you are spouting nonsense.

It is becoming clearer that the problem lies in the ability to read and comprehend.

I believe the idea that there is an inability to read and comprehends has gone from concept, to clear evidence, and is now a fact.

There are also the obvious lies such as fake quotes, the purposeful misrepresentations, and the constant moving of the goal posts.

Lol Dude my quote is going to be my quote whether you like it or not lol. Stereologist I  think you have a level of understanding of where we are coming from although the pieces may not fit to you and also i think that the whole idea of this theory and possible other theories scares you in way that compels you to insult people base on their look on life or their theories and concepts. It threatens your whole way of life because you think that your way of thinking it absolute.

Now I never said any of the theory of this thread was truth and you know that so let's not play games. We only argued about the Scientific bases of the theory such as electromagnetism, biochemistry and nutrition etc. There's been a lot of context being misunderstood I admit but you can't straight call us liars.. nothing we said coming from a Scientific perspective was completely incorrect......

the theory itself such as the idea psychic abilities, chi, etc; THAT'S debatable. But regardless of us being wrong or not you can't insult us dude... You can say you right about everything else if that makes you feel better but you are WRONG as far as the insults. We can continue to debate with dialogue but the insults is uncalled for. We can have a civilized debate without all this female bickering 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trelane

So is this all about stuff like "the force" or nah? Just glancing through some of the comments it appears to have taken a detour.

Dreams aren't like auras or life force stuff. There have been many studies conducted examining brain activity during sleep cycles. There isn't anything really that strange about that at least. We have extremely complex brains. Brain functions and wave patterns associated with dreams are just one of many activities they conduct.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael
35 minutes ago, Trelane said:

So is this all about stuff like "the force" or nah? Just glancing through some of the comments it appears to have taken a detour.

Dreams aren't like auras or life force stuff. There have been many studies conducted examining brain activity during sleep cycles. There isn't anything really that strange about that at least. We have extremely complex brains. Brain functions and wave patterns associated with dreams are just one of many activities they conduct.

This thread is base on, science maybe able to explain psychic abilities, base on electromagnetism. Which you can read details from the very first post. Let us know what you think.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
22 hours ago, Ankhael said:

We have prove this whole list except for 7, we actually wasn't trying to prove 7, because that was just speculation.

we showed that Pubmed list only peer review articles per their listing approval policies, and yet you still deny it. And yes  government  listing service does certify research, especially when wikipedia and many medical school rely on those studies for education purposes. Most Universities in the US is funded by the US Education Dept. So they are going to assure that the research they list is reliable. I'm sure your friend on that wiki fandom page would agree, seeing how he only suggest not believe arturo because he work wasn't listed on Pubmed at the time, which it is now lol. he might as well delete the page now lol.

we proved to you that melanin is  photovoltaic, photocatalytic, materials which we know we common sense can be used in water splitting application, melanin has a number if ways it can be used to split water. Doesn't take Arturo research to prove you that. I even used  Paul Meredith whom you respect as a scientist, hes already invented melanin solar cells for such application, its absolutely unrefutable. You looking for words that says "Melanin can dissociate the water molecule". you have to use critical logical thinking when you read the papers we present to you. Used context clues, remember that back in school.

We showed you his research was peer review by publisher Springer, and they are listed on Pubmed, also Paul Meredith have even reference a paper from Springer in one his papers, of course it wasn't Arturo, but nevertheless it goes to show you Paul Meredith trust the publisher enough to reference a paper from them. There absolutely no indication of springer being bad.

You are correct these are just a few of the repeated lies that you and Aten34 have posted in t his thread.

Repeated lies

1.        That I did not prove Arturo Herrerra is a liar and fraud.

2.        The lie that all articles in PubMed are peer reviewed.

3.       The lie that papers outside of the fake papers by Herrerra show melanin dissociates water into hydrogen and oxygen.

4.       The lie that none of the Spanish links rejected Arturo Herrerra as a liar and fraud – 100% of them did

5.       The lie that all species with melanin can radiosynthesize

6.       The lie that humans can transmit signals via modulated signals

7.       The lie that melanin can capture signals, not just absorbs EM

8.       The lie that a government listing service certifies some research

9.       The lie that any of Arturo Herrerras papers are peer reviewed

  And now you are doubling down on the pathetic stupid lie that PubMed lists only peer reviewed articles. That was a lie and was shown to be a lie. In fact none of the articles by the liar and fraud Arturo Herrerra are peer reviewed. You deny this despite the overwhelming evidence that you lied and lied and lied about this.

And no the government does not certify anything they list. Another stupid stupid lie. The simple fact is that it is a lie that wikipedia and many medical schools rely on those studies. This is all lies you have repeated and repeated.

And the simple fact is that there is no connection between the funding by the government and the reliability of the research.

So let's review these stupid lies AGAIN! The services like PubMed are listing services. They do certify anything. They list all sorts of journals including journals that are NOT peer reviewed. Publishing an article is simply a matter of stating what a researcher did. It does not mean that the research is correct. The validity of the research is worked out over time through the consensus of the researchers and not by an outside group such as the government.

Listing the properties of melanin does not mean it has properties that have NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE CORRECT. There is zero evidence that melanin splits water. You are lying again and again and again about this.

Then you lie by saying Arturo Herrerra's research. He has published no research. That is a lie.

Now you claim Paul Meredith "invented melanin solar cells". Is that the truth? Please show us were he invented that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
22 hours ago, Ankhael said:

Actually the body is piezoelectric

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity#Bone

even melanin

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17543514  Melanin

There is even technology being made to harvest human energy into devices from the muscles piezoelectric affect. 

Beside that honestly this could explain why in Chinese and  Indian cultures yoga and tai chi promotes the movement of the body promote chi energy or prana. They may not link but it certainly interesting

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/577004 Piezoelectricity Yoga 

Here is the problem. The body IS NOT piezoelectric although there may be parts within it that are. The body itself is not.

What is so difficult to understand?

Your link to melanin is another fine example of your complete and utter inability to be truthful.

Here is what the link states

Quote

The current study provides the first example of melanin-coated piezoelectric sensor

The melanin is not piezoelectric. How incompetent are you? This is more likely you telling yet another lie.

The last article has been shown to be wrong. Acupuncture has been shown to be nothing more than the placebo effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
21 hours ago, Ankhael said:

Lol Wow man you keeping up with these insults, I'm starting think that is your area of expertise lol. Calm down before you bring the Moderate back lmao. Its just a chat wow your so serious, you say your not in your feelings but how you insult people says differently, lmao are you that intimidated by us that you always have to state in every post that your more intelligent than us and that we are stupid fool or idiots? We just free thinkers its nothing wrong with, this how scientists discover new things, by not being afraid of asking questions. Relax stereologist Seem like you are obsessed with knowing more than other lol no offense but you say it in almost all your post lmao

You keeping hanging on to this like I'm saying it true lol. I have a fair knowledge how electricity works ok. Its just a theory ok and for your info protonic conduction is not a common use as many are still trying to develope better Applications use. And how do know for sure that they have tested the electromagnetic field of protonic conduction. You don't know for sure, tour not an expert on the matter. I'm not saying any of what i am saying it true get it.

And again I never said anything of that article we supported my speculation. You say you have observations but surely you don't when it come to reading others post lmao. I just made a Speculation based off things I've read in Paul Meredith articles. He noted that melanin could be one of the links between technological and biological communication. 

 

If you stopped being a liar then I would not have to point out your lies.

The simplest way to deal with liars such as yourself is to point out the lies as many times as you lie.

No you know nothing about electricity. Your posts show that to be the case. Protons are well know particles. Your speculations which are nothing more than gibberish based on ignorance tell us you know nothing about electricity, EM, the EM force, or anything at all above an elementary school level.

No wonder you can't understand anything including the article by Paul Meredith. You lack even the trivial understandings of electricity and chemistry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
21 hours ago, Ankhael said:

@stereologist

Here check this out you might find this interesting 

This is one of the methods Meredith is doing with melanin

  protonic conductor - is an electrolyte, typically a solid electrolyte, in which H+ are the primary charge carriers. 

Acid solutions exhibit proton-conductivity, but for practical applications, proton conductors are usually dry solids. Typical materials are polymers or ceramic. Typically, the pores in practical materials are small such that protons dominate direct current and transport of cations or bulk solvent is prevented. 

When in the form of thin membranes, proton conductors are an essential part of small, inexpensive fuel cells. The polymer nafion is a typical proton conductor in fuel cells. A jelly-like substance similar to nafion residing in the ampullae of Lorenzini of sharks has proton conductivity only slightly lower than nafion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_conductor

 

H+ hydron become hydronium - The hydron (a completely free or "naked" hydrogen atomic nucleus) is too reactive to occur in many liquids, even though it is sometimes visualized to do so by students of chemistry. A free hydron would react with a molecule of the liquid to form a more complicated cation. Examples are the hydronium ion in water-based acids, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydron_(chemistry)

 

Proton-exchange membrane fuel cells,  also known as polymer electrolyte membrane(PEM) fuel cells (PEMFC), are a type of fuel cell being developed mainly for transport applications, as well as for stationary fuel-cell applications and portable fuel-cell applications. Their distinguishing features include lower temperature/pressure ranges (50 to 100 °C) and a special proton-conducting polymer electrolyte membrane. PEMFCs generate electricity and operate on the opposite principle to PEM electrolysis, which consumes electricity. They are a leading candidate to replace the aging alkaline fuel-cell technology, which was used in the Space Shuttle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton-exchange_membrane_fuel_cell

I am well aware of protons as conductors. But your ignorance based musings show you are completely and utterly clueless on the matter.

You really need to put quotes around the material you copy. It makes sense unlike your ramblings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
7 hours ago, Ankhael said:

Show me source where they could see a dream under a microscope.

And those scientists might have ideas you call psuedo science 

Blunder about what?,what I'm saying correct, surely that would have a public feat if scientists figured out what dreams where and seeing under a microscope, it must be a Secret its not Publish anywhere that I know. Not even a wikipedia page article. So where you getting this info and what school you went to lmao

Science do not have all the answers yet

Are you that clueless? Don't you follow up on research?

Time for you to go to school and learn some basic science. Then you wouldn't be so clueless.

You probably have no idea what a microscope does. You probably have this third graders idea of what a microscope does and can't understand what is being stated.

The fact that science does not have all of the answers has nothing to do with the things science does know. That's the sort of malarkey people toss out when they are clueless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
4 hours ago, Aten34 said:

Lol Dude my quote is going to be my quote whether you like it or not lol. Stereologist I  think you have a level of understanding of where we are coming from although the pieces may not fit to you and also i think that the whole idea of this theory and possible other theories scares you in way that compels you to insult people base on their look on life or their theories and concepts. It threatens your whole way of life because you think that your way of thinking it absolute.

Now I never said any of the theory of this thread was truth and you know that so let's not play games. We only argued about the Scientific bases of the theory such as electromagnetism, biochemistry and nutrition etc. There's been a lot of context being misunderstood I admit but you can't straight call us liars.. nothing we said coming from a Scientific perspective was completely incorrect......

the theory itself such as the idea psychic abilities, chi, etc; THAT'S debatable. But regardless of us being wrong or not you can't insult us dude... You can say you right about everything else if that makes you feel better but you are WRONG as far as the insults. We can continue to debate with dialogue but the insults is uncalled for. We can have a civilized debate without all this female bickering 

You are as incompetent as anyone I've ever met. You have repeated failed to be truthful.

You have not provided a single scientific idea. Not one. You should be learning instead of telling one lie after another.

Sure I can call you liars because that is what you do. These are not mistakes. These are repeated falsehoods. You even made up a fake quote you attributed to me.

Show me one instance of anyone transmitting a signal using EM radiation. Show me one. All of these lies about melanin splitting water, melanin capturing signals, are just lies which come from a single source Arturo Herrerra who I proved is a liar and fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
3 hours ago, Trelane said:

So is this all about stuff like "the force" or nah? Just glancing through some of the comments it appears to have taken a detour.

Dreams aren't like auras or life force stuff. There have been many studies conducted examining brain activity during sleep cycles. There isn't anything really that strange about that at least. We have extremely complex brains. Brain functions and wave patterns associated with dreams are just one of many activities they conduct.

Welcome to the thread where posting falsehoods is the norm.

There are two posters that try to pull the David Wilcock trick of posting links to articles that do not support their claims.

It is a laugh a minute as these two blunder along making up stories and after a few pages go back to the lies that have already been repeatedly disproved.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
2 hours ago, Ankhael said:

This thread is base on, science maybe able to explain psychic abilities, base on electromagnetism. Which you can read details from the very first post. Let us know what you think.

So why do you continue to avoid science and instead make up lies?

From the start we see that the science was disregarded as in the nonsensical claims that diet changes the body pH was shown to be false.

From the first post on it has been nothing but a complete disregard for science.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Are all entries in PubMed peer reviewed? All I have to do is show one instance and that should end this debate for at least a page or two.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306452217302634

Quote

Predatory open access is a controversial publishing business model that exploits the open-access system by charging publication fees in the absence of transparent editorial services. The credibility of academic publishing is now seriously threatened by predatory journals, whose articles are accorded real citations and thus contaminate the genuine scientific records of legitimate journals.

Quote

However, 14.9–24.7% of them were found to be indexed in PubMed and PubMed Central, which raises concerns on the criteria for inclusion of journals and publishers imposed by these popular databases.

So how did the liar and fraud Arturo Herrera publish. He used predatory journals to publish his lies. And these have found their way into PubMed as stated in this article.

https://jefferson.libguides.com/c.php?g=250298&p=1666251

Quote

2. Is the scholarship peer-reviewed? Predatory journals tend to provide little to no peer review or editorial oversight.

That's a polite way of saying NO.

There are ways around peer review as well since not all journals use peer review.

https://guides.erau.edu/journals

Quote
Scholarly Journals

Although peer-reviewed journals are always scholarly in nature, scholarly journals are not always peer-reviewed.  Scholarly journals are research focused, reporting the results of original research and experimentation. They are heavily cited in the form of either footnotes or bibliographies, and written by, and addressed to, experts in a discipline. However, whereas peer-reviewed journals require a strict "peer-approval" for publishing, a scholarly journal that is not peer-reviewed only requires the approval of an editorial board.

Suspicious articles such as the ones by Arturo Herrera that contain:

  • no experiment
  • no results
  • no method
  • no discussion

would ever be published in a legitimate journal.

That is why the liar and Fraud Arturo Herrera uses open source journals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Are these journals as bad as claimed? Yes they are.

https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oct/04/open-access-journals-fake-paper

Quote

Hundreds of open access journals, including those published by industry giants Sage, Elsevier and Wolters Kluwer, have accepted a fake scientific paper in a sting operation that reveals the "contours of an emerging wild west in academic publishing".

The hoax, which was set up by John Bohannon, a science journalist at Harvard University, saw various versions of a bogus scientific paper being submitted to 304 open access journals worldwide over a period of 10 months.

The paper, which described a simple test of whether cancer cells grow more slowly in a test tube when treated with increasing concentrations of a molecule, had "fatal flaws" and used fabricated authors and universities with African affiliated names, Bohannon revealed in Science magazine.

Crazy right?

The article goes on to point out that it was written so that any high schooler should have realized the article was junk.

Quote

He wrote: "Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper's shortcomings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless."

I believe I've made the same complaint multiple times. People do not understand the basics of science and cannot understand the articles they are examining.

This is not the first time someone has tested these open source journals. The previous findings are like what was reported here.

Quote

Of the 255 versions that went through the entire editing process to either acceptance or rejection, 60% did not undergo peer review. Of the 106 journals that did conduct peer review, 70% accepted the paper.

And here is another jab at publishing pranks.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/arts/academic-journals-hoax.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ankhael
2 hours ago, stereologist said:

You are correct these are just a few of the repeated lies that you and Aten34 have posted in t his thread.

Repeated lies

1.        That I did not prove Arturo Herrerra is a liar and fraud.

2.        The lie that all articles in PubMed are peer reviewed.

3.       The lie that papers outside of the fake papers by Herrerra show melanin dissociates water into hydrogen and oxygen.

4.       The lie that none of the Spanish links rejected Arturo Herrerra as a liar and fraud – 100% of them did

5.       The lie that all species with melanin can radiosynthesize

6.       The lie that humans can transmit signals via modulated signals

7.       The lie that melanin can capture signals, not just absorbs EM

8.       The lie that a government listing service certifies some research

9.       The lie that any of Arturo Herrerras papers are peer reviewed

  And now you are doubling down on the pathetic stupid lie that PubMed lists only peer reviewed articles. That was a lie and was shown to be a lie. In fact none of the articles by the liar and fraud Arturo Herrerra are peer reviewed. You deny this despite the overwhelming evidence that you lied and lied and lied about this.

And no the government does not certify anything they list. Another stupid stupid lie. The simple fact is that it is a lie that wikipedia and many medical schools rely on those studies. This is all lies you have repeated and repeated.

And the simple fact is that there is no connection between the funding by the government and the reliability of the research.

So let's review these stupid lies AGAIN! The services like PubMed are listing services. They do certify anything. They list all sorts of journals including journals that are NOT peer reviewed. Publishing an article is simply a matter of stating what a researcher did. It does not mean that the research is correct. The validity of the research is worked out over time through the consensus of the researchers and not by an outside group such as the government.

Listing the properties of melanin does not mean it has properties that have NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE CORRECT. There is zero evidence that melanin splits water. You are lying again and again and again about this.

Then you lie by saying Arturo Herrerra's research. He has published no research. That is a lie.

Now you claim Paul Meredith "invented melanin solar cells". Is that the truth? Please show us were he invented that.

Once again read https://lib.dmu.edu/su/ethicaldoc/findpeerreview#s-lg-box-6168140 Pubmed is peer reviewed.

Paul Meredith photovoltaic cell using titanium and melanin https://patents.google.com/patent/US20040231719

Patents by others

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160143195A1/en?q=Photocatalytic&q=melanin&oq=Photocatalytic+melanin+

https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3228192A2/en?q=melanin&q=solar+cell&oq=+melanin+solar+cell

 

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.