What is wrong is the way you go about it. You have been told repeatedly how the scientific process works, yet you refuse to accept it. You prefer faith over evidence. You will never show how homeopathy works unless you first show that is works.Kumar said:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Kumar said:
Kumar, I figured I owed you a few replies in return for the language award. I think that debt will be soon paid. If you want to continue this conversation, you'd better start making some sense, fast (fat chance
).Hans
Donks said:
Yes, but problem with me is that TRs shown working, in my observations & experiances & so many others.
Mr.Hans,
More likely third law of idiocy.
You mean idiocy(reaction) against idiocy(action).
Nonsense. You don't know anything about energy (or atoms and molecules, for that matter).
Therefore trying so hard.
Bah. Don't play silly (there is no need to, but you are not THAT silly): What IS the fluid? What is in it? What will happen if you drink it? I am thinking of a specific fluid, wanna try how long it will take you to guess it?
I am talking about physical appearnce effect--you see anything physically or see its photo, some similar interactions & effects will be there in both cases(refer; Can photograph effect"). Ingestion effect/chemical effect is a differant aspect eg; of drinking alcohol
, but we are considering same here.In a picture? What ARE you talking about??
I mean reflected WLs & its shape is there to recognize it.
That is not the commonly understood definition for aura.
Then, what is understood. I consider it like this as I mentioned.
(Some Dict. definitions of Aura; a distinctive atmosphere surrounding a given source: a luminous radiation : an energy field that is held to emanate from a living being ).
It is wrong that you ignore whatever information that does not fit your ideas, and that you take all kinds of concepts out of context. You are not trying to test your beliefs scientifically (that would be an excellent thing to do), you are merely dredging scientific texts for smart words that you think you can construe to fit your purpose. You do not try to understand anything, quite the opposite, you are trying to misunderstand it.
I am just trying 'possible misses'. Otherwise it will be 'posible weaknesses'. There can't be any discussions without following all that as you mentioned above.
Kumar, I figured I owed you a few replies in return for the language award. I think that debt will be soon paid. If you want to continue this conversation, you'd better start making some sense, fast (fat chance ).
Pls make it more clear.
Kumar said:
I already told you that the wavelengths coming off a photo bear no resemblance to the wavelengths coming off the original object. The whole science of photography is based on the fact that our eyes can be fooled by the use of wavelengths different from the original.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Kumar said:Yes, but problem with me is that TRs shown working, in my observations & experiances & so many others.
And you and many others are wrong. Don't feel bad, people have been wrong before.
You mean idiocy(reaction) against idiocy(action).
Still need to work on your jokes.
Nonsense. You don't know anything about energy (or atoms and molecules, for that matter).
Therefore trying so hard.
Trying so hard to do what? Ignore facts?
I am talking about physical appearnce effect--you see anything physically or see its photo, some similar interactions & effects will be there in both cases(refer; Can photograph effect"). Ingestion effect/chemical effect is a differant aspect eg; of drinking alcohol
Repeating nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
I mean reflected WLs & its shape is there to recognize it.
So what?
(Some Dict. definitions of Aura; a distinctive atmosphere surrounding a given source: a luminous radiation : an energy field that is held to emanate from a living being ).
Did the dictionary mention anything about "shedded skin particles"
I am just trying 'possible misses'. Otherwise it will be 'posible weaknesses'. There can't be any discussions without following all that as you mentioned above.
How do you expect to disclose "misses" and "weaknesses" when you don't understand the simplest concepts? You are like somebody trying to proof-read a book in a language he doesn't understand.
Hans
rppa said:
Is it possible? I do not feel it is right, since our brain can recognize a photo. It means, specific information is stored in a photo. You can consider as per dimentions in photo.
Mr.Hans,
And you and many others are wrong. Don't feel bad, people have been wrong before.
I don't feel bad, since its science is not yet clear. Time will only clear it or its science.
Still need to work on your jokes.
It shows, I don't/can't make jokes.
Trying so hard to do what? Ignore facts?
No to know truth of so called facts.
Repeating nonsense doesn't make it any less nonsensical.
Suitable time will clear it. It is really good with you yhat you don't agree on "absoluteness".
Did the dictionary mention anything about "shedded skin particles" ?
Yes, "a distinctive atmosphere surrounding a given source."
How do you expect to disclose "misses" and "weaknesses" when you don't understand the simplest concepts? You are like somebody trying to proof-read a book in a language he doesn't understand.
You can say that I don't understand simplest concepts of your language, but I do understand other side of your language in my language & remain mostly "absolute" on that. You/I don't understand each other due to these language differances.
When you say "Is it possible? I do not feel it is right", I hope you are not specifically responding to rppa's statement "the wavelengths coming off a photo bear no resemblance to the wavelengths coming off the original object". We talked about that in detail in your photo topic. I really thought you were clear on that.rppa :[/i] I already told you that the wavelengths coming off a photo bear no resemblance to the wavelengths coming off the original object. The whole science of photography is based on the fact that our eyes can be fooled by the use of wavelengths different from the original. [i]Originally posted by Kumar said:
How can you recognize a particular remedy when they all are little white pills?
I don't know about your country, but in this country (USA), April 1st is called April Fools's Day, when some people play silly tricks on other people. One kind of trick is to put salt in the sugar container and sugar in the salt container. Why does this work? Because sugar and salt look the same.
Could you see the difference between a cup of sugar and a cup of sugar with a pinch of salt added? Or a pinch of KCl? You can't. And that would only be a 3x or 4x dilution.
I don't understand what you are talking about; your eyes can't tell the differencxe between your remedies.
You have me at a disadvantage, Kumar. You can manufacture nonsense faster than I can assimilate it.
I'm personally in awe of MCHans that he can keep up!
On another note, don't tell me HOW homeopathy works. Do some comprehensive double blind studies that SHOW me it does. We'll work out 'why' and 'how' later. With the $1,000,000 US from Randi, we'll probably have enough of a research team to start with. But show me the studies, first. Remember, double blind, comprehensive and study were used in that sentence. In conjunction. NO cheating.
I'm personally in awe of MCHans that he can keep up!
On another note, don't tell me HOW homeopathy works. Do some comprehensive double blind studies that SHOW me it does. We'll work out 'why' and 'how' later. With the $1,000,000 US from Randi, we'll probably have enough of a research team to start with. But show me the studies, first. Remember, double blind, comprehensive and study were used in that sentence. In conjunction. NO cheating.
EdipisReks
Custom Title
i've changed my mind. i originally thought that Kumar was a true, non troll, moron, but i now think he is a troll. a very good troll, and a dedicated troll even. the 3rd law of motion quip was just too sublimely moronic to have come out of the mouth of a natural moron. of course, if Kumar is an actual true to nature moron, he makes Blatheri(nteresti)ng I(an)diot look positively brilliant. nobelesque, even.
flume said:
I think, I mostly mentioned as 'somewhat similar'. If these are not somewhat similar, how our brain process, matches & recongnize a photo?? Is it not a simple common sense that whenever brain matches two images, whether a photo or a real person, there ought to be some similarity in reflected WLs from both--may be in form of colour, edges or dimentions(pattern/spectrum) as brain interact with these WLs only.
clarsct said:You have me at a disadvantage, Kumar. You can manufacture nonsense faster than I can assimilate it.
It is your weakness, may improve later on.
I'm personally in awe of MCHans that he can keep up!
Because he may be more in touch.....
On another note, don't tell me HOW homeopathy works. Do some comprehensive double blind studies that SHOW me it does. We'll work out 'why' and 'how' later. With the $1,000,000 US from Randi, we'll probably have enough of a research team to start with. But show me the studies, first. Remember, double blind, comprehensive and study were used in that sentence. In conjunction. NO cheating.
On another note, as I said repetedly, become firm, first by doing survey of homeopathic clinics & community, note the observations & experiances of those mass......people. On becoming firm, absolutely with firm views, start dedicated research, clear misses & weaknesses in understanding it. The most important condition is 'to become firm & fully dedicated by conducting survey first'. Probably after becoming dedicated & firm, if you invest $1m in reseaching it, you may note/get progress to some extent.
Practical observations, experiances & time testings can be more important considerations than tests & DB studies, in view of many medicines still shows adversities so banned, inspite all modern hard tests & DB studies. But pracrical experiances & time testing can persist for long.
NO, NO, NO! The brain does NOT interact with the photons! The eyes do!Kumar said:
And your "simple common sense" is wrong, in every possible instance, in every possible way. I suggest you get a new one.
You were already give explanations of how the eyes work, how substractive and aditive colors work, everything you need.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Kumar said:Is it possible? I do not feel it is right, since our brain can recognize a photo. It means, specific information is stored in a photo. You can consider as per dimentions in photo.
Kumar, it does not matter how you feel. It IS right. Try this little experiment:
Right in front of you, right now, there is a computer screen. Look at the margins of the forum. Which color do you see? Unless you use an unusual setting, it will be white. White like a piece of paper, right?
Now, get a good magnifying glass and look at the white of the screen. Does it still look white? Not if you have enough magnification. Then you will discover that it really consists of little colored spots. They are red, blue and green.
Now look at a piece of paper. No matter how much you enlage it (within limits), it is still uniformly white.
You now know that little colored spots can trick your eyes into seing wihte. Interesting, ehh?
I don't feel bad, since its science is not yet clear. Time will only clear it or its science.
And you will still be wrong. Science is extremely clear on these subjects, and it is more likely that we will find out that Earth is actually flat that we will find that homeopathic remedies work.
No to know truth of so called facts.
There is no difference.
Did the dictionary mention anything about "shedded skin particles" ?
Yes, "a distinctive atmosphere surrounding a given source."
That will include BO also, then
You can say that I don't understand simplest concepts of your language,
I have news for you, Kumar: There is only one "language". That language is reality.
but I do understand other side of your language in my language & remain mostly "absolute" on that.
Actually, you don't. All you do is cling desparately to your belief system. You ideas are not even logically consistent.
You/I don't understand each other due to these language differances.
Oh, I understand you, Kumar. Much too well
Hans
Donks said:
I think eyes only process/catches the image, not recognize it. Even eyes, you can still say our eyes/body process, matches & recongnize a photo?? Is it not a simple common sense that whenever eyes/body matches two images, whether a photo or a real person, there ought to be some similarity in reflected WLs from both--may be in form of colour, edges or dimentions(pattern/spectrum) as eyes/body interact with these WLs only.
Who said anything about recognizing it?Kumar said:
The photons interact with the eyes. There are multiple ways to produce what the eyes see as a single color. What you really need is to crack open a science book. Any science book. Even a children's one will do.
Just because you insist on remaining the most ignorant person on the planet, that doesn't mean other people don't know how stuff works.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Kumar said:I think, I mostly mentioned as 'somewhat similar'. If these are not somewhat similar, how our brain process, matches & recongnize a photo??
Exactly because our brain processes things. Our brain searches for similarities. Look at this =>
Is it not a simple common sense that whenever brain matches two images, whether a photo or a real person, there ought to be some similarity in reflected WLs from both--may be in form of colour, edges or dimentions(pattern/spectrum) as brain interact with these WLs only.
Apart from the fact that the brain does, of course, not interact with any wavelenghts, the eyes do: It may be common sense, but common sense is often wrong. Look at you screen (again). You see a panel with letters, pictures, and symbols. However, it is not really there. All there is is ONE SINGLE tiny flying spot that changes color and intensity as it flies quicly over the screen (unless you have a flat-screen, then it is something different, but still not what it appears to be.
Our senses are easily fooled, Kumar.
Hans
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Kumar said:*snip*
On another note, as I said repetedly, become firm, first by doing survey of homeopathic clinics & community, note the observations & experiances of those mass......people.
And, we have told you that this has been done. You are a hypocrite here, Kumar. How many clinics did YOU visit? How mant observations did YOU note and study before you made your mind up? 1? 2? YOU have not studied a lot of clinics, YOU have not read hundres of case stories (because then you would know more than you do).
However, scientists HAVE studied homeopathy. Remember it has been around for 200 years. They have even been making experiments. It HAS all been done, Kumar.
On becoming firm, absolutely with firm views, start dedicated research, clear misses & weaknesses in understanding it.
And the firm, absolutely firm conclusion is: It does not work. It never worked, and it never will work. What benefit patients get from homeopathy is simply placebo.
The most important condition is 'to become firm & fully dedicated by conducting survey first'.
Translation: You need to believe
Probably after becoming dedicated & firm, if you invest $1m in reseaching it, you may note/get progress to some extent.
Sorry to burst your little bubble, but the big and mighty pharma companies don't give a hoot about systems and "languages". All they care about is money. If any homeopathic remedy could be shown to work, it would now say "Glaxo" on the label.
Practical observations, experiances & time testings can be more important considerations than tests & DB studies,
No, you are wrong.
in view of many medicines still shows adversities so banned, inspite all modern hard tests & DB studies.
These adversities were also found using protocols. Not just hearsay.
Hans
MRC_Hans said:Kumar, it does not matter how you feel. It IS right. Try this little experiment:
Right in front of you, right now, there is a computer screen. Look at the margins of the forum. Which color do you see? Unless you use an unusual setting, it will be white. White like a piece of paper, right?
Now, get a good magnifying glass and look at the white of the screen. Does it still look white? Not if you have enough magnification. Then you will discover that it really consists of little colored spots. They are red, blue and green.
Now look at a piece of paper. No matter how much you enlage it (within limits), it is still uniformly white.
You now know that little colored spots can trick your eyes into seing wihte. Interesting, ehh?
Do you want to persist on that, there is no similarity in a image of a person in person & in his same time true colour & true dimentioned photo?
And you will still be wrong. Science is extremely clear on these subjects, and it is more likely that we will find out that Earth is actually flat that we will find that homeopathic remedies work.
But still extremely clear is not absolute. Extremely clear objects during early morning, late evening, moon light night time, in cloudy weather or in artificial lights, can still be some unclear & can become more clear, during full bright noon time, day light clear weather or in natural lights. You might have notices shades differances during differant lighting conditions.
No to know truth of so called facts.
There is no difference.
One can be absolute other can be extremely clear.
That will include BO also, then .
??
I have news for you, Kumar: There is only one "language". That language is reality.
Yes, that is natural language or inherant sense of right & wrong. I sometimes/mostly(?) go along with this, but you may be apparent skeptic in this language.
Actually, you don't. All you do is cling desparately to your belief system. You ideas are not even logically consistent.
Just in your/s thinking only. Btw, Do you understand, approve & endorss logics?
Oh, I understand you, Kumar. Much too well .
Yes correct, but I am talking about my language not about me.
Donks said:
"NO, NO, NO! The brain does NOT interact with the photons! The eyes do!"
If sunlight interacted & passes through a glass, then that light from glass to our eyes & then from our eyes to brain---can't mean sunlight didn't interacted with our eyes & brain & interacted only with glass. In some came form or in some other form, it also interacted with our eyes & brain. Taking salt in mouth & ingested, not only mean, salt has only interacted with our mouth.