- Active Posts:
- 36 (0.08 per day)
- Most Active In:
- Biology (22 posts)
- 07-February 12
- Profile Views:
- Last Active:
- Nov 22 2012 04:48 AM
- Member Title:
- Advanced Member
- Age Unknown
- Birthday Unknown
- Not Telling
- Click here to e-mail me
Topics I've Started
16 November 2012 - 01:55 PMI have been researching Biophoton and Bio-communication recently. But I noticed this topic is kind of shunned by "mainstream" science, and that it has ended up as a fringe view? But biophotons do exist.
It seems to be associated with the work of Fritz-Albert Popp.
Here is an interesting paper on the topic:
QuoteThe topic of bio-informational aspects of photon emission has a
history of more than eighty years. It is an example of a research topic that is
inadequately studied within mainstream biology. This article reviews the research
activities during the three main phases of this line of this research. The
first period is characterized by Gurwitsch-type experimentation on mitogenetic
radiation. Radiation was detected by changes in biological organisms
that function as radiation detectors.
From another website:
QuoteBiophotons were first discovered in 1922 by a Russian embryologist named Alexander Gurwitsch and are classified as ultra-weak photon emissions from living systems (1). Further research done since the 1960′s has conclusively demonstrated that these biophotons do indeed exist and play an important role in the functioning of living organisms (2).
This low-intensity glow that is emitted by living organisms cannot be seen by the naked eye, however, equipment such as biophoton analyzers and photomultipliers can pick up these weak signals and present researchers with data and diagrams.
One of the main researchers on this topic is Dr. Fritz Albert Popp. For over 30 years Dr. Popp and his team have done extensive research and experimentation on biophotons, and have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that biophotons do exist, have specific properties, and can fluctuate at different levels. These levels have been measured through a device created by Dr. Popp and others called a biophoton meter.
As you can see the journal who have published the paper will probably be called "fringe science" and the other website link. The question is whay is mainstream biology not willing to study biophotons, when it clear they do exist?
26 July 2012 - 10:03 AMHello,
I have no education in physics and I have a hard time understanding the subject so I need the basics. I have tried to search the internet to understand what matter is made of but I often see confusing and sometimes contradiction in different answers, so I have started this thread as a simple question. What is a matter made of?
The first answer that I will probably get is atoms and then sub-atomic particles I do get that, but I am not understanding beyond that, I have seen people say these are made up of energy or strings? Please explain if you can? And what does it mean by energy or strings?
23 July 2012 - 05:11 AMHello,
I want to discuss in this thread a new type of biology which says that beliefs/consciousness control DNA/Genes instead of genes controlling the organism. The main scientist behind this appears to be Dr. Bruce Lipton author of The Biology of Belief:
According to his book:
QuoteThis book is a groundbreaking work in the field of new biology, and it will forever change how you think about thinking. Through the research of Dr. Lipton and other leading-edge scientists, stunning new discoveries have been made about the interaction between your mind and body and the processes by which cells receive information. It shows that genes and DNA do not control our biology, that instead DNA is controlled by signals from outside the cell, including the energetic messages emanating from our thoughts. Using simple language, illustrations, humor, and everyday examples, he demonstrates how the new science of Epigenetics is revolutionizing our understanding of the link between mind and matter and the profound effects it has on our personal lives and the collective life of our species.
QuoteLipton describes this new science, called epigenetics, in his book, The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter and Miracles (2005: Mountain of Love/Elite Books). Full of citations and references from other scientists conducting leading-edge research in this field, this book could literally change your life at its most fundamental level.
Until the discovery of epigenetics, it was believed that a cell’s nucleus, which contains the DNA, was the “brain” of the cell, quite necessary for its functioning. In fact, as Lipton and others discovered, cells can live and function quite well even after their nuclei are removed. The real “brain” of the cell is its membrane, which reacts and responds to outside influences, dynamically adjusting to an ever-changing environment. What does this mean for we collections of cells called humans? As we encounter various environmental influences, we tell our genes what to do, usually unconsciously. Do carbs make us fat? If we believe they do. Will we be loved, succeed on the job, be prosperous? If we believe we will.
On Cellular Consciousness
Interview With Bruce Lipton:
QuoteMAB: The premise of your book “The Biology of Belief” is that humans are not, as was previously believed, victims of our genes, but that the environment has a direct effect on our DNA. Would you elaborate?
BL: Sure. Until recently, it was thought that genes were self-actualizing, meaning genes could turn themselves on and off. As a result, most people today believe they are genetic automatons, and that their genes control their lives.
But my research introduces a radical new understanding of cell science. The new biology reveals that we ‘control’ our genome rather than being controlled by it. It is now recognized that the environment, and more specifically, our perception or interpretation of the environment directly controls the activity of our genes. This explains why people can have spontaneous remissions or recover from injuries deemed to be permanent disabilities.
MAB: Then it really is about “mind over matter”?
BL: Yes, this new perspective of human biology does not view the body as just a mechanical device, but rather incorporates the role of a mind and spirit. This breakthrough is fundamental in all healing because it recognizes that when we change our perception or beliefs we send totally different messages to our cells, causing a reprogramming of their _expression.
This new science is called epigenetics. It’s been around for about 16 years, but it’s just now being introduced to the general public. For example, The American Cancer Society is an organization that has been looking for cancer genes for the last 50 years or so. But they’ve found that only about 5 percent of cancer has genetic linkage, leaving 95% that is not genetically linked. Recently the American Cancer Society released a statistic that said 60 percent of cancer is avoidable by changing lifestyle and diet. So now they are telling us, “It’s the way you live, it’s not your genes.”
QuoteThe notion that the nucleus and its genes are the “brain” of the cell is an untenable and illogical hypothesis. If the brain is removed from an animal, disruption of physiologic integration would immediately lead to the organism’s death. If the nucleus truly represented the brain of the cell, then removal of the nucleus would result in the cessation of cell functions and immediate cell death. However, experimentally enucleated cells may survive for two or more months with out genes, and yet are capable of effecting complex responses to environmental and cytoplasmic stimuli (Lipton, et al., Differentiation 1991, 46:117-133). Logic reveals that the nucleus can not be the brain of the cell!
Any opinions about any of this? Please do share your thoughts!
20 July 2012 - 08:24 AMSomeone recently told me they have some evidence against the Big Bang and sent me this paper http://www.stanford....nde/1032226.pdf The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe by Andrei Linde. The paper however seems to be from 1994 so perhaps there is nothing new here.
I am afraid I do not understand this model so someone can explain it to me please. It appears to be a version of Eternal inflation but I do not see how this would contradict the Big Bang, just it is an extension? Is this model obsolete or still has support? Opinions needed. Thanks.
18 July 2012 - 08:05 PMMost folk will know about the soul weighing experiments of Duncan Macdougall or Harry La Verne Twining however a more recent writer Donald Gilbert Carpenter has published a whole book on soul-weighing. Apparently the book is free online but I can not find it! If anyone knows where to find his book please let me know.
According to a website I found:
QuoteIn 1998, Donald Gilbert Carpenter published a whole book about soul-weighing (Physically Weighing the Soul). It's a long book but lightweight, as light as a soul, for it exists only in cyberspace, available by download at 1stBooks.com. According to Carpenter, the reason the dogs and the mice might have shown no weight loss at death is that their souls are so light they were below the scales' detection thresholds. Macdougall said his dog-weighing scale was accurate to one-sixteenth of an ounce (1.8 grams), but a dog's soul weights less than 1.8 grams. How do we know this is the weight of a dog's soul? Because Donald Gilbert Carpenter has calculated it. (I love this guy!) Using Macdougall's findings for human beings — that the soul weighs about 20 grams — Carpenter calculated the ratio of soul-weight to body-weight-at-birth: one to 140. Applying this to a typical puppy birth weight, he deduced that the average dog soul weighs one gram — about half the 1.8-gram sensitivity of the scale. Same problem with Twining's mouse souls — too light to register. (But not Jesus' soul. The discarnate Jesus is calculated in Chapter 17 to weigh 364 grams — close to a pound!)
and another link on soul weight http://www.scientifi...4_hollander.pdf
Anyone opinions about this?
forests hasn't added any friends yet.