Leisure Power Of Thoughts, Vibrations, Anhad Shabad, Dr. Emoto's Water Experiments, Shabad Guru

[chazSingh]

Sat Sangat Ji,

We've probably all at some stage left water in a jar when an akhand paat is carried out and drank it afterwards.
Our bodies are made up of mostly water - 65-90% of each cell in our body is water. It is such an important element that exists in gods domain.

I came across this experiment conducted by a scientist called Masaru Emoto. He tested the effects of Thoughts and sound vibrations on Water, froze the water and then
analyzed the water crystal structure after the thoughts or verbal words were spoken to the water. The results were quite amazing and just confirms that everything is a vibration and everything has consciousness, and god exists in all

If our Negative and Positive thoughts and vibrations have so much effect on water....and we consist of MAINLY WATER...what effect is our thoughts and vibrations (both positive and negative) having on us, and the people around us?

Here are some links to the experiments and interviews given by Dr Emoto:

Mystry of Water - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4n-rw6vq-4
interview with Dr Emoto: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujQAk9EM3xg&feature=related



Lets all keep Meditating on Shabad Guru and project positive thoughts within us through every cell and to all the people around us.
SHABAD GURU - Believe in it, Live it, breath it, speak it and LOVE IT

God bless all.

Satnaam Waheguru, Satnaam Waheguru, Satnaam Waheguru.

 

[arshdeep88]

nice one shaaz brother ji

 

[spnadmin]

Disclaimer. SPN is not responsible for the accuracy and legitimacy of information posted on threads. The research of Dr. Emoto has on a number of occasions been shown to be pseudo-research, and his findings debunked as pseudo-science. Information has been posted elsewhere on SPN.

 

[Ishna]

We've probably all at some stage left water in a jar when an akhand paat is carried out and drank it afterwards.

Really? What's that all about? Clearly it's not a Gurmat practice.

 

[Luckysingh]

Really? What's that all about? Clearly it's not a Gurmat practice.

That is a quite common practice that happens at akhand and sehaj paaths, more commonly with the ones at home.

I do get the impression that most gurdwaras don't actually do this anymore.
I remember many years ago when many gurdwaras in UK would have lots of bottles filled with water that the sangat would help themselves to, to take home. There was also this fascination with dhoofh-incense or joss sticks, where sangat would bring them in as donation and then light them whilst there !!- I am NOT surprised that someone eventually put their foot down on this issue and I've never seen it in recent years.

 

[Harry Haller]

If our Negative and Positive thoughts and vibrations have so much effect on water....and we consist of MAINLY WATER...what effect is our thoughts and vibrations (both positive and negative) having on us, and the people around us?

a huge effect Chazji, the way we influence others with our own manner is, I believe, a neglected facet of Sikhi

 

[aristotle]

Pseudoscience pseudoscience everywhere.
Twisting a spoon with mindpower,
Telepathy,
Previous birth therapy,
Exorcism,
and now these so-called non-verified 'experiments'...

Why didn't this gentleman take the pains to get it publish it in a Chemistry journal instead of making a Youtube video?
Probably because they would have thrown it in the dustbin.

Clearly not Gurmat, and surely not Science....

 

[aristotle]

Q. A movie and a book said that water molecules
are affected by human thoughts. The movie
showed water being exposed to negative human
emotions and then forming strange shapes. How
does that happen?
A. Despite the claims made in the cult hit "What the
Bleep Do We Know?" and in the best-selling book
"The Secret Life of Water," this water theory is not
supported by any scientific evidence whatsoever.
The tip-off comes on page 126 of the book, where
writer Masaru Emoto notes that "sometimes fantasy
is the best way to get a clear picture of reality."
Sorry, not where science is concerned.
Emoto claims that negative or positive words,
emotions, and music can influence water's form,
producing either beautiful crystals or ugly shapes
when freezing. "Water's reaction will differ
depending on whether the heart of the observer is
filled with appreciation or with anger..." he says.
After that, the next step is to attribute this property
to the water inside your own body, and then to all
the water on the earth. The theory is that positive
thoughts make a happy planet via this water-based
mechanism.
Emoto starts with an accurate scientific fact:
Snowflakes can take on an incredibly diverse
variety of forms and crystal structures. Every
snowflake has six-fold symmetry, but within that
constraint the diversity is amazingly great.
Water itself is a pretty simple molecule, H2O. In
liquid form, many simple molecules rattle around
bumping into each other all the time. When frozen,
H2O forms a regular crystal lattice of molecules
locked together, for which we use the term “ice.” But
there is absolutely no "vibration" or emotion from
humans associated with the formation of crystals.
If, following the book’s directions, you take a very
shallow layer of distilled water in a petri dish and
freeze it quickly to well below 0 C, you will get
irregular crystal formations, the geometry of which
is subject almost entirely to the mathematics of
chaos. There is no serious long-range order, just the
short-range order of one crystal influencing the
growth of the one next to it.
Emoto also ignores the inconvenient fact that some
of the water in his experiment (such as lake water)
was combined with other substances. If there are
chemicals in water (either dissolved or suspended
solids), a different, irregular pattern of freezing can
occur. Impurities may lead to additional nucleation
centers where crystal formation can begin more
easily. So there will be more small crystals, starting
at many different sites, and therefore less order
among the adjacent crystals.
In addition, water can freeze into an amorphous
state, where the beautiful order and symmetry of a
single snowflake is lost in the jumble. This would
undercut the essential claim that how the water
freezes is determined by thoughts and words.
This author freely admits that he picked and chose
particular crystals that fit his own definition of
"beautiful" and even admits that isn't scientific. He
then goes off into a digression about how science
really isn't that sure of anything in the first place,
erroneously invoking Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle.
The crystals are simply random. That's all there is to
it. Are they affected by "the personality and thought
of the photographer"? Only in one very important
way: Due to personality and thought, the
photographer selects certain crystals and ignores
others, from an initial collection that is totally
random. As Emoto says, "the whim of the person
doing the selecting certainly comes into play” and "I
admit that the selection process is not strictly in
accordance with the scientific method, but.."
It's always convenient to invoke science to buttress
pleasant ideas. In the water case, the bottom line is
“be positive and the world will be happy.” It may be
true that positive thoughts help make a better planet,
but it's not because those thoughts affect water.

(Source: www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2006/03/Sensitive-Water-Science-Or-Fantasy.aspx)

 

[Harry Haller]

Q. A movie and a book said that water molecules
are affected by human thoughts. The movie
showed water being exposed to negative human
emotions and then forming strange shapes. How
does that happen?
A. Despite the claims made in the cult hit "What the
Bleep Do We Know?" and in the best-selling book
"The Secret Life of Water," this water theory is not
supported by any scientific evidence whatsoever.
The tip-off comes on page 126 of the book, where
writer Masaru Emoto notes that "sometimes fantasy
is the best way to get a clear picture of reality."
Sorry, not where science is concerned.
Emoto claims that negative or positive words,
emotions, and music can influence water's form,
producing either beautiful crystals or ugly shapes
when freezing. "Water's reaction will differ
depending on whether the heart of the observer is
filled with appreciation or with anger..." he says.
After that, the next step is to attribute this property
to the water inside your own body, and then to all
the water on the earth. The theory is that positive
thoughts make a happy planet via this water-based
mechanism.
Emoto starts with an accurate scientific fact:
Snowflakes can take on an incredibly diverse
variety of forms and crystal structures. Every
snowflake has six-fold symmetry, but within that
constraint the diversity is amazingly great.
Water itself is a pretty simple molecule, H2O. In
liquid form, many simple molecules rattle around
bumping into each other all the time. When frozen,
H2O forms a regular crystal lattice of molecules
locked together, for which we use the term “ice.” But
there is absolutely no "vibration" or emotion from
humans associated with the formation of crystals.
If, following the book’s directions, you take a very
shallow layer of distilled water in a petri dish and
freeze it quickly to well below 0 C, you will get
irregular crystal formations, the geometry of which
is subject almost entirely to the mathematics of
chaos. There is no serious long-range order, just the
short-range order of one crystal influencing the
growth of the one next to it.
Emoto also ignores the inconvenient fact that some
of the water in his experiment (such as lake water)
was combined with other substances. If there are
chemicals in water (either dissolved or suspended
solids), a different, irregular pattern of freezing can
occur. Impurities may lead to additional nucleation
centers where crystal formation can begin more
easily. So there will be more small crystals, starting
at many different sites, and therefore less order
among the adjacent crystals.
In addition, water can freeze into an amorphous
state, where the beautiful order and symmetry of a
single snowflake is lost in the jumble. This would
undercut the essential claim that how the water
freezes is determined by thoughts and words.
This author freely admits that he picked and chose
particular crystals that fit his own definition of
"beautiful" and even admits that isn't scientific. He
then goes off into a digression about how science
really isn't that sure of anything in the first place,
erroneously invoking Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle.
The crystals are simply random. That's all there is to
it. Are they affected by "the personality and thought
of the photographer"? Only in one very important
way: Due to personality and thought, the
photographer selects certain crystals and ignores
others, from an initial collection that is totally
random. As Emoto says, "the whim of the person
doing the selecting certainly comes into play” and "I
admit that the selection process is not strictly in
accordance with the scientific method, but.."
It's always convenient to invoke science to buttress
pleasant ideas. In the water case, the bottom line is
“be positive and the world will be happy.” It may be
true that positive thoughts help make a better planet,
but it's not because those thoughts affect water.

(Source: www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2006/03/Sensitive-Water-Science-Or-Fantasy.aspx)

Although you are of course correct, I feel a bit like a child who has just been informed that the tooth fairy does not exist.

All day, I have been interacting with people and imagining the effect my manner is having on thier water molecules, it is hard not to notice a difference when we are polite, compassionate, sympathetic and empathetic, and I noticed it hugely today.

Remind me to avoid you over Christmas
lol lol lol

 

[aristotle]

@harry Ji,
I respect your opinions and the way you tend to take home positivity from any interaction. One should no doubt try to become a source of positivity for the people around, a smile can surely change your day, if not the world.
I posted the above posts probably because its my inherent tendency to counter whenever something phony is masqueraded as Science, even more when Gurmat philosophy is connected with the same. It was never my intention to be a Science nazi. Please spare me my innocent inquisitiveness.

*smiles*

 

[Harry Haller]

@harry Ji,
I respect your opinions and the way you tend to take home positivity from any interaction. One should no doubt try to become a source of positivity for the people around, a smile can surely change your day, if not the world.
I posted the above posts probably because its my inherent tendency to counter whenever something phony is masqueraded as Science, even more when Gurmat philosophy is connected with the same. It was never my intention to be a Science nazi. Please spare me my innocent inquisitiveness.

*smiles*

not at all, in all honesty your ability to burst some bubbles makes you an outstanding and important member of this forum, I enjoy being the comic relief

 

[aristotle]

I am merely the comic relief

Not at all. That is the last thing anyone on this forum will feel.

 

[spnadmin]

An overview of how to spot scams parading as science What is pseudoscience? http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html

A web page that has organized in one spot a number of ongoing scams related to well-being and water, with brief notations from chemistry explaining why these are scams

A systematic investigation of Emoto's claims Water Cluster Quackery http://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html

Probably the more important concern, not whether this is junk science, but rather the junk science leads to fraud by which the "wellness," food-supplement, medical conspiracy, and cures "doctors won't tell you about" industries make millions; and it is all legal.

Is Masaru Emoto for Real? http://is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/

 

[Kanwaljit.Singh]

I could find sufficient evidence and support for Dr. Emoto’s claims to merit conducting a deeper research project to try to reproduce his work.

I think in the research field this is imp. You have to describe the environment, the setup etc. for others to be able to reproduce the results.

E.g. when we do our testing, we even tell how many cores the machine had, what all programs were running on it etc.

 

[aristotle]

Many people in our
modern age want desperately to believe that we can
affect our reality by our thoughts alone—a belief
that is bolstered by Emoto’s claims. But if they are
false, then he is misleading all of them and
manipulating their hopes and view of the world.

What is truly
fearsome is the great numbers of people that accept
his words as proven facts without looking deeper to
find out if his claims are truly justified.

Just making it to the quotebooks does not absolve someone of the burden of proof. On the contrary, such phony people dilute the importance of philosophy and mislead people who are desperately wanting to latch on to something that could make them escape the miseries of their lives.

 

[spnadmin]

I think this short excerpt from a very long lecture given by Dr. Sheldon Gottlieb tot he Harbinger Association

WHAT IS SCIENCE?

by Sheldon Gottlieb
http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/rel_sci/gottlieb.html

Let me start by telling you a story. Last September my wife and I toured the Canadian Yukon and Alaska as a 40th wedding anniversary gift to ourselves. In Alaska, at a trading store where my wife was purchasing some souvenirs for the children and grandchildren, I met a young man who is a science teacher during the academic year at a local denominational senior high school and who doubles as a store clerk during the summer. He was excited to learn that I was both a professional research scientist and an educator. We spoke for awhile and then discussed the teaching of controversial subjects such as evolution.

Suddenly, in response to one of my questions, he made a statement that sent shivers up my spine and left me to despair about the quality of science education those students in the far north were being exposed to. He said: "After all, you do have to admit that facts are only as good as the theory on which they are based." Even after I tried to explain to him that he had it backwords, he, a science teacher, failed to grasp one of the most fundamental aspects of the working of science: scientific theories are derived from facts and not the other way around. ...



I promised you that I would explain why that statement made by the young man in Alaska is primarily a religious statement and why the erroneous answers of my students to the true-false question: "Data are only as good as the theory on which they are based" is also religiously based.

First, let me point out that when I was teaching anatomy and physiology one of my favorite true-false questions was: In humans, males have one less rib than women. It was unbelievable how many students got that question wrong despite the fact that they had text books and they had both male and female skeletons in the lab to work on. Inevitably, the students who got that rib question wrong were those who believed in the literal interpretation of Bible stories. They let their religious beliefs with which they were indoctrinated from the time they were born take precedence over their own observations and facts.

I realized that the man in Alaska was making religious statement when I remembered that one way in which religion differs from science is that religion starts with a conclusion and everything else must be interpreted to meet the dictates of that conclusion. The young man in Alaska had a couple of conclusions (evolution does not occur and nature tests faith) and only those data that fit his preconceived conclusions would be considered valid by him. Observations that cannot be made to fit his preformed conclusions are either to be discarded or disregarded.

The students in my classes who do not understand the difference between faith and fact are ready to discard anything that did not fit their preconceived ideas. These are ideas that they were indoctrinated with from their earliest years, just like the students with the rib question. The young woman in my class who said that she did not desire to know about evolution because it contradicted that which she was taught as a child and that she did not want to be the only kid in the playground who knows the truth about Santa Claus is an excellent example of people who discard and disregard data in the name of religion.

The discarding and disregarding of data -- even the falsification of concepts -- are very prevalent in creationist literature pertaining to the denial of evolution.

The discarding and disregarding of data is exactly the opposite of what occurs in science, as I have tried to explain to you. Should scientists discard or disregard data, there are others who will quickly remind them of the existence of the information. This is one of the areas in which science demonstrates its dynamic, self-correcting nature. The requirement of considering all scientifically derived evidence is what makes science the most honest of human endeavors.

In closing, permit me to show you just one social consequence of not understanding the proper functioning of science, of not understanding the differences between science and religion, and the need for understanding definitions of words and using them in their proper context.

I will use as an example a subject I have referred to several times tonight, namely evolution and the unnecessary and non-sensical evolution/creation controversy. It is unnecessary and non-sensical for the following reasons. When creationists discuss evolution they deliberately use the word theory on the lowest intellectual level as evidenced by the ridiculous insert required in Alabama textbooks. They refuse to use the same terminology as do scientists. If they did, they would not have any bases for their arguments.

By playing to the scientific ignorance of the general public they can and do create intellectual, social, and political confusion and havoc. They even deliberately distort the nature of the controversy. By appealing to the courts, in which they have repeatedly lost, the creationists are also creating further confusion in the minds of the public.

From my discussion, I hope it is clear that issues of science can only be solved in one place and one place only, and that one place is the laboratory. That place is not in courts of law. That issues of science cannot be solved in courts of law is one of the great lessons taught by the Scopes Trial and by subsequent court decisions.

A court of law is not equipped to solve issues of science. Only people engaged in science who challenge ideas based on evidence that meets scientific rigor are best equipped to challenge scientific ideas.

By permitting such issues of science to come before courts of law only underscores the scientific illiteracy of those in our legal system. By permitting the courts to adjudicate issues of science we are not only seeing but participating in the denial of science and also we are witnessing and participating in its perversion. Simultaneously we are also seeing and participating in the perversion of the law. Society is asking the law to do that which it is not equipped or qualified to do. It is also costing the public unnecessary expenditure of vast sums of money while creating sociopolitical rancor.

This, in part, is what I meant when I said early on that there are sub- cultures in our society that are trying to undermine the essence of science. People who accept unsubstantiated beliefs and faith and the words of authority figures as scientific truths are not equipped to challenge scientific data and the ideas based thereon on scientific grounds.

 

[spnadmin]

In other words, science as a field adopts a clearly defined objective which it pursues in many diverse fields. All science claims to be

Science is an intellectual activity carried on by humans that is designed to discover information about the natural world in which humans live and to discover the ways in which this information can be organized into meaningful patterns. A primary aim of science is to collect facts (data). An ultimate purpose of science is to discern the order that exists between and amongst the various facts.

by Dr Gottlieb

There is a big WoW factor in science. However often scientists may discover some big WoWs and share their wonder with us, scientists themselves do not make WoW the defining core of their enterprise. WoW is a by-product of science, not its purpose. When WoW is the defining feature of someone's act, you are probably dealing with magicians, shamans, babas, charletons, snake oil salesman, and circus performers

 

[Luckysingh]

Does this mean that there is No God factor in water ??

 

[Harry Haller]

Does this mean that there is No God factor in water ??

Water, the giver of life, together with the sun, absolutely has the God factor.

I intend to make an offering of water to the sun tomorrow, fancy coming along?

 

[spnadmin]

Just wondering if Luckysingh ji is asking?

God factor in water = WoW factor in water?

No: I am stating there is no God factor in Science, and scientists like it that way (at this point someone thinks to quote Einstein out of context, or misunderstand what happened to Galileo, such is the way of the web).

You can still have WoW without science being part of the discussion. I say WoW every time it snows.

You can also have WoW without God. Many an atheist will say WoW every time it snows.

After careful observation, measurement, connections, and predictions are tested, science explains "snow." Of course that is the boring part unless you are a scientist. The "theory of relativity" was described after Einstein observed, measured, connected and tested predictions using mathematical equations. Then he said "WoW." "Maybe there is a God." Maybe.

Our consolation is that everyone is free to say WoW at any time, with or without facts. Just promise to be careful. Don't pay for it.