Slashdot Mirror


Nobel Prize Winner Says DNA Performs Quantum Teleportation

HJED writes "TechWorld is reporting that the joint winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2008, Luc Montagnier, is claiming that DNA can send 'electromagnetic imprints' of itself into distant cells and fluids which can then be used by enzymes to create copies of the original DNA. This would be equivalent to quantum teleportation. You can read the original paper here [PDF]."

347 comments

  1. umm by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am no geneticist, biophysicist, or organic chemist, but...this sounds wacky, even by Nobel laureate (who tend to go for the fringe ideas after they win) standards.

    1. Re:umm by elucido · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly. It doesn't matter how an idea sounds. If it's right then it's right.

    2. Re:umm by hoggoth · · Score: 5, Funny

      It does raise my suspicions that he listed 'TimeCube' in his citations attached to the paper.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    3. Re:umm by popeyethesailor · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude, you made me RTFA - that's unfair :/

    4. Re:umm by DebateG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am a biologist by trade, and I can say that this paper is very, very poorly done. If it was submitted to any major journal in the field, the peer reviewers would tear it to shreds. Here is the big experiment: 1) Take DNA and place it in tube #1 diluted around 1 million fold 2) Separate it from tube #2 containing all the building blocks of DNA, but not properly assembled 3) In between tube #1 and tube #2 is a special piece of metal 4) Subject the entire thing to low frequency magnetic field 5) There is an induction of the DNA to emit oscillatory radiation 6) DNA replicate magically appears in tube #2 from the building blocks I can buy the assertion that DNA at certain dilution transmits some strange radiation. It's step 5 to 6 that I think is complete and utter garbage. They don't do the proper controls for step 4 to 5. What happens when no DNA is present in tube #1? What happens when there is no inducing field? What happens when the building blocks are present in tube #2? They clearly know that this is an issue because they do the exact controls from steps 4 to 5. The "synthesis" of new DNA can easily be explained by one explanation: contamination. DNA sequencing techniques are sensitive enough to detect one or two copies of that sequence. If any of their reagents, tools, or lab members got even a single molecule of DNA on them and transferred it to tube #2, they would see that result. This is a basic fact that pretty much all molecular biologist learns (usually the hard way, by accidentally contaminating something of importance). To give the authors the benefit of the doubt, I'll go ahead and say they have successfully duped Slashdot with a hoax spoofing the claims of homeopathy.

    5. Re:umm by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, this is good. Very good. Just because he can't separate out a mycobacterium from a virus he has to come up with some completely left field explanation?

      The 'apparatus' is pretty impressive. I'd expect this out of an eighth grade science fair experiment but "coil made up of copper wire, 300 ohms". That's it? That's all you need? We've all completely missed this one?

      I know there is a long lead time on scientific publications but April 1st is still a ways in the future.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:umm by justsomebody · · Score: 1

      and if it is right... i just have to learn how to do it cooperatively, so i can finally abandon walking.

      --
      Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
    7. Re:umm by DontLickJesus · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree that these controls should probably be presented in the paper, but a layman could assume someone would attempt this multiple times before publishing.

      I'm not saying this guy is right. However, aside contamination, wouldn't the only other explanation be that genetic material has assembled itself out of nowhere? If I remember correctly science has yet to observe that phenomenon, so I can understand why the author would be looking to other sources.

      Using terms like "New Facts" hurt the author's credibility, as do the lack of proper controls. But, let the man research. Calling this a hoax is to dismiss the entire process and set aside something potentially life changing.

      Even better, send your comments and suggestions directly to the author: vitiello/at/sa.infn.it

      Help him become better, don't just criticize the idea.

      --
      Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
    8. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      *cough* elucido did not read the article (it's a disaster)

    9. Re:umm by leighklotz · · Score: 1
    10. Re:umm by DebateG · · Score: 5, Informative

      I take back my assertion that this is a hoax. Apparently, this Nobel Prize laureate has a history of producing very tenuous science on this topic. I think he's actually serious, which is pretty sad.

    11. Re:umm by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative
      From your link:

      There are many problems with the paper, not least that it is pretty much self-published in a journal without rigorous peer-review (it took two days from ‘receipt’ of the paper to publishing) and the journal was set up and edited by Montagnier himself.

      My head asplode.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:umm by Suki+I · · Score: 1

      I am no geneticist, biophysicist, or organic chemist, but...this sounds wacky, even by Nobel laureate (who tend to go for the fringe ideas after they win) standards.

      Krugman won a Nobel Prize too you know. It is no guarantee of brilliance.

    13. Re:umm by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By the same token, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even brilliant scientists can sadly find themselves a few bricks short of load. Roger Penrose has humiliated himself with his quantum mind nonsense, and Fred Hoyle's cosmological contributions were overshadowed by his rejection of evolution (quite out of his area of expertise) and advocating of panspermia.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    14. Re:umm by nomadic · · Score: 1

      The Economics Nobel Prize isn't a real one, though. Krugman is actually one of the few recipients of it I have respect for.

    15. Re:umm by IICV · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's called the Nobel Disease. The Nobel Prize is one of the highest prizes awarded in science, so it seems like some scientists think that once they have it, the only way to top their previous work is to escape the confines of reality entirely.

      It doesn't turn out well, most of the time.

    16. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Economics Nobel Prize isn't a real one, though. Krugman is actually one of the few recipients of it I have respect for.

      My God man! Seek help and a Milton Friedman book quickly. Perhaps Thomas Sowell if you prefer an easier to digest version.

    17. Re:umm by HJED · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA, it says "Full details of the experiments are not yet available" as the paper is linked in TFA I assume he intends to publish another paper about this.

      --
      null
    18. Re:umm by Ruie · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I am a physicist, and there is more nonsense:

      1) Ultra Low Frequency Electromagnetic Waves (ULF 5003000 Hz) were detected in certain dilutions of ltrates (100 nm, 20 nm) from cultures of micro-organisms (virus, bacteria) or from the plasma of humans infected with the same agents (Fig. 2). Same results are obtained from their extracted DNA.

      2) The electromagnetic signals (EMS) are not linearly correlated with the initial number of bacterial cells before their ltration. In one experiment the EMS were similar in a suspension of E. coli cells varying from 109 down to 10. It is an all or none phenomenon.

      • His coil is too small to pick up "ULF waves", rather it picks up magnetic fields varying at audio frequencies. There are plenty of natural and artificial sources that produce these and making a sensitive measurement is tricky.
      • Filed strength is independent of the number of potential emitters - clear signature that they are measuring instrumental noise.
    19. Re:umm by RocketRabbit · · Score: 0

      Didn't we just hear about how about 40% of the science out there can't be duplicated? IE, it was wrong.

      Sounds like this guy is just full of shit.

    20. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Krugman is actually one of the few recipients of it I have respect for.

      Good god man, why?

    21. Re:umm by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Friedman? Really? That's where you're going? Friedman reminds me a lot of slashdot libertarians; start with a conclusion (i.e. the free market always works) and work backwards.

    22. Re:umm by nomadic · · Score: 0

      zomg he's disagreeing with meeee I can't stand ittttt noooo damn statist waaah.

    23. Re:umm by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Now see, I find that fascinating! The question is why? Do they really think they can now be "scientists" (method be damned) by attempting to be a pioneer without fear of ridicule and reprisal? Or, has the fame of the elite Nobel prize got them so drunk with fame and fortune that they will now say and do anything among the ignorant?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    24. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for Obama.

    25. Re:umm by Skreems · · Score: 5, Informative

      They don't do the proper controls for step 4 to 5. What happens when no DNA is present in tube #1? What happens when there is no inducing field?

      From TFA:

      The following controls were found to suppress the EMS transmission in the water tube:
      - Time of exposure of the two tubes less than 16 18 hrs
      - No coil
      - Generator of magnetic field turned off
      - Frequency of excitation - Absence of DNA in tube 1.

      They did in fact answer all your concerns, and I would think that the fact that the generator turned off resulted in a negative trial addresses most of your concerns about contamination... they shouldn't have gotten a negative for basically ANY of those variables if it was just contamination.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    26. Re:umm by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      No. Start with a premise that people have the right to do business with each other, consensually as long as neither force nor fraud is involved. From there, decide that there are cases where we, the people, enforce the laws so have some say in defining them. From there, proceed to a principle of least interference. If there's a very compelling reason for regulation of the market, then do it. Otherwise, leave it alone - people will live.

      You don't regulate shit because you can, or because it saves a few million consumers $10 a month. You regulate it when you need to for environment, safety, national security, or possibly _extreme_ economic reasons, not just because "fuck, why not".

      Sure, you'll find a few college kid big-L Libertarians with all kinds of whacky theories about privatizing everything, but for you most part you're applying a strawman.

    27. Re:umm by eggnoglatte · · Score: 2

      No. Start with a premise that people have the right to do business with each other, consensually as long as neither force nor fraud is involved.

      That is an ideological argument not an economic one. Also, it is still the equivalent of starting with the conclusion and massaging everything else with the goal of arriving there, just like the GP said.

    28. Re:umm by cats-paw · · Score: 1

      "If any of their reagents, tools, or lab members got even a single molecule of DNA on them"

      how exactly do you prevent a single molecule of contamination ??

      It seems to me that you are saying it's impossible NOT to have a sample be contaminated.

      --
      Absolute statements are never true
    29. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's think for a second about what life *is*...
      Current human understanding has many limits - here are the big 3:
      -The very large (the limits of our universe, the contents of black holes, etc)
      -The very small (quarks, quantum invisible 3rd particle phantom pairing, etc.)
      -DNA/aka life (how did it get there? how does all that crazy DNA code work?!?)
      OK, so what if life is actually the ability to transcend understanding from one "universe" to the next. some order of intelligence that can transcend. So like, our definition of sentient life has transcended the biology of survival and can reach out to technology, etc. on to the next universe of understanding, up to outer space, etc.
      so what if DNA itself is the proliferation of another smaller sentient life that's figured out how to control and replicate *its* universe of scale. Those beings have that quark shit whipped! They rule quantum! and they rule our stupid asses too! They have the code for our friggin brains! Who's to say they can teleport a few millimeters. Prove they didn't do it!!

    30. Re:umm by golden+age+villain · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Two other things, the text is really bad. He would be laughed at by reviewers and editors for his scientific writing style. For instance:

      The story started ten years ago when one of us (L.M.) studied the strange behaviour of a small bacterium, a frequent companion of HIV. [...] Then the question was raised: what kind of information was transmitted in the aqueous filtrate? It was the beginning of a long lasting investigation bearing on the physical properties of DNA in water.

      More of a problem, they do not show any evidence. The only "data" on display are poorly made drawings of the setup (why not take a picture?) and a screenshot of some curves whose resolution is so low that it is impossible to read anything. I had already read some time ago that he is now a proponent of the infamous "water memory" theory. It is sad to think that someone who was arguably at the top of his field some years ago has sunk so low and is humiliating himself like this.

    31. Re:umm by golden+age+villain · · Score: 1

      Yeah great and where are these data plotted? Tables? Figures? Statistical tests anyone?

    32. Re:umm by GerryHattrick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Alternative hypothesis is that nutters sometimes have a real advantage in discovering the truly unexpected, and thus win Nobel Prizes. That doesn't stop them being nutters. Overstated, I know, but you see what I mean.

    33. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay. Then, instead, we can start with the premise that you have a right to exist.

      Do you agree with that one?

    34. Re:umm by gilleain · · Score: 1
      I absolutely agree that the results look dubious at best - but there is this part of the paper:

      The following controls were found to suppress the EMS transmission in the water tube:

      • Time of exposure of the coil...blah blah...
      • Absence of DNA in tube #1

      Contamination does seem the most likely explanation. Although it does seem to be consistent contamination - they test 'transmission' of sequence A and get a band on the gel corresponding to the known weight of sequence A, and the same with sequence B. In general, this kind of research strikes me as Nobel prize disease...

    35. Re:umm by gilleain · · Score: 5, Funny

      Audio frequencies? So perhaps someone in the lab is chanting "A...C...G..C..G...A..T" while the experiment is going on, and this induces DNA to form in the second tube! (j/k)

    36. Re:umm by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          It's just more proof that a theorist can yank whatever wacky theory out of their ass, and write it up as a paper. Funny thing is, if us normal people were to do the same thing, we'd likely be put in a nice padded room for a few years.

          I do kind of like the concept that everything is in contact with everything else. My DNA has a direct link to any of my DNA that may be out there, and I could use that to control the other part. Unfortunately, when the kids become teenagers, that theory is blown complete out the window. I'm pretty sure *MY* DNA isn't telling anyone to be a rebellious teenager. Well, not any more at least. My DNA has already been through all of that right along with the rest of me. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    37. Re:umm by gilleain · · Score: 2

      Now see, I find that fascinating! The question is why? Do they really think they can now be "scientists" (method be damned) by attempting to be a pioneer without fear of ridicule and reprisal? Or, has the fame of the elite Nobel prize got them so drunk with fame and fortune that they will now say and do anything among the ignorant?

      Well one clue is that they usually move into a field that they know little about, but (I guess) think that they completely understand. So, for example, a physicist tries his hand at research into intelligence and determines that people with black skin should not breed because they are idiots (or some such foolishness).

      I don't think it is limited to Nobel winners either. It also happens to older/retired scientists, who feel free to pursue new topics. Much of the time this is a good thing; sometimes you get geologists saying that climate change is all nonsense...

    38. Re:umm by gilleain · · Score: 2

      Alternative hypothesis is that nutters sometimes have a real advantage in discovering the truly unexpected, and thus win Nobel Prizes. That doesn't stop them being nutters. Overstated, I know, but you see what I mean.

      Are you referring to Kary Mullis? :) Anyway, I agree - this does seem a good possibility. If you have to think outside the box too much, sometimes you fall out.

    39. Re:umm by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      Obviously it's a joke! If you were serious, you'd have started that chain with Thyamine...

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    40. Re:umm by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well there were scientific studies done, these are repeatable and falsifiable. Rather than everyone presenting their own skeptical opinion as though it were indisputable truth how about we get a few volunteers to repeat the experiments and actually find out the answer.

    41. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me, the first hint was that the entire paper was center-aligned.

    42. Re:umm by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      If the idea is right, the summary is wrong. The title talks about quantum teleportation, then the summary explains "regular" teleportation. Quantum teleportation would imply that a DNA molecule's waveform can cross a potential barrier with a certain probability (and it would assume that this phenomenon has biological relevance). I see nothing of the sort there.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    43. Re:umm by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sure, you'll find a few college kid big-L Libertarians with all kinds of whacky theories about privatizing everything, but for you most part you're applying a strawman.

      A few? Slashdot seems to be absolutely loaded with people who want to privatize everything, including the road leading up to your driveway.

      You don't regulate shit because you can, or because it saves a few million consumers $10 a month.

      Is there a real-life example behind the $10/month thing?

    44. Re:umm by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Obama's prize wasn't for science, it was the Peace Prize. However, there was a similar effect, in a way: after he got the award, he proceeded to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the US still hasn't pulled out of either. In addition, he reneged on his campaign promise to close Guantanamo. For all we know, there's still torture going on there.

      So I guess after he got the Peace Prize, without having actually done anything to earn it, he decided not to even bother doing anything to promote peace.

    45. Re:umm by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      " ... Exactly. It doesn't matter how an idea sounds. If it's right then it's right. ... "

      And if it is right, other people will be able to re-create the experiment and observe the same things. That's how science works.

      Quoting one paper that observed something does not show it to be right.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    46. Re:umm by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      Read Ruie's comments above. There is no linear correlation between numbers of bacteria and EMF. That pretty much means background noise.

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    47. Re:umm by Stooshie · · Score: 1

      Exactly, and I thought the bit about freezing the samples preserved the signal, was dubious too!

      --
      America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    48. Re:umm by georgeb · · Score: 2

      You're talking about quantum tunneling. Quantum teleportation is about teleportation of information in quantum entangled particles.

    49. Re:umm by tibit · · Score: 1

      The quality of the paper is IMHO abysmal. It's very non-technical despite the appearance of being so, and I don't think that the authors quite know what they are writing about.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    50. Re:umm by tibit · · Score: 1

      Woooooosh. The onus of PRESENTING TO and CONVINCING the reader of an article that the authors did in fact "attempt this multiple times before publishing" is on THEM. They did nothing of the sort. I see absolutely no solid data that would show it's a repeatable phenomenon that cannot be explained by experimental mistakes. End of the story right here. Nothing to see, move on. Seriously.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    51. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree with the parent. I've just sent off some PCR for re-re-sequencing - it's supposed to be influenza, but I've had it back as legionella and staphylococcus on two separate occasions already. Controls are definitely needed, and with a claim of this magnitude, it should be performed blinded.

    52. Re:umm by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 2

      i thought it said wanking

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    53. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They did in fact answer all your concerns, and I would think that the fact that the generator turned off resulted in a negative trial addresses most of your concerns about contamination... they shouldn't have gotten a negative for basically ANY of those variables if it was just contamination.

      Contamination is still a possibility for that single tube. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I would have run this experiment at least 50 times before publishing and detail things like: how many times it worked (would have to have at least 85% success), how many replica sequences were produced each run, whether any similar but not quite the same sequences were produced, etc. If any of my negative controls turned up hot, I would abandon the experiment.

      This is first year biochemistry stuff and what happens when you deal with very very small things. I've run tests that turned up feline DNA in E. coli cells. Rather than suggest some new biochemical spooky action at a vast distance, I knew a skin cell or something found its way into my experiment :/

    54. Re:umm by GauteL · · Score: 1

      "Okay. Then, instead, we can start with the premise that you have a right to exist."

      Quite honestly, whether he agrees or not is completely irrelevant for this argument. Science and moral standpoints are simply not the same thing and it is completely possible to decline to act on scientific research because the act would be immoral.

      I.e. say a scientific study concluded that the world would be a better place if we executed all unemployed people. In this case I hope most people would conclude that the unemployed people's right to exist is more important than improving the world.

    55. Re:umm by GauteL · · Score: 1

      "You don't regulate shit because you can, or because it saves a few million consumers $10 a month. "

      I disagree. Regulation to save a few million consumers $10 a month sounds like it may well be worthwhile. Obviously it depends on the actual case and what the consequences may be, but saving a few million consumers $10 a month may well be worth it.

    56. Re:umm by rich_hudds · · Score: 2

      How exactly has Penrose humiliated himself? He just says we're missing something in our attempts to explain consciousness and the missing bit is likely to be something involving the unsatisfactoty bit of physics that people gloss over 'Collapse of the wave function'

    57. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am not a biologist, but the original DNA extraction process could leave some whole bacteria behind?
      And then, could those bacteria be ripped apart by the 7Hz frequency, exposing its DNA to the sensors?

    58. Re:umm by ocularsinister · · Score: 1

      I was following you until it got to the T chord - I've no idea what the fingering for that is on the guitar!

    59. Re:umm by DebateG · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, they did the proper controls on the DNA generation of frequency. I think that could, within the confines of current science, be a reasonable claim. They did not do those same controls on the transmissible assembly of DNA through these water nanostructures. That claim is the one I think is unbelievable. If I were writing this paper, I would make it explicit that these controls were performed for both experiments. The fact that they did not do this leads me to conclude they were trying to trick the reader into assuming they did.

    60. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You've humiliated yourself by posting this.

    61. Re:umm by DebateG · · Score: 1

      It is very hard. For most experiments, you're not trying to detect a few molecules of DNA. You can set up your detection sensitivity so that a tiny bit of contamination won't be detected. For something like this, were you are trying to detect very small amounts of DNA, it becomes much, much harder. Firstly, you use very purified reagents. All the reagents need to be aliquoted individually in a location physically separate from where the DNA is. This is typically done in a specialized clean hood that can be sterilized with UV radiation. The reagents are combined in a similar hood and then transferred to where the tube with the DNA is. All of this needs to be done using gloves that are changed frequently. Next, you have to be very careful about what pipettes you use. The pipettes from each step need to be thoroughly cleaned, possibly DNAse treated to remove DNA. Again, each part of the experiment should use different sets of pipettes. To ensure that things are not contaminated, you have to use various controls such as leaving out the polymerase, dNTPs, etc. I'm sure if you got some other biologists together, they could brainstorm about a dozen precautions. It's not impossible to do, but it can be hard. I personally have lost months of research time because I accidentally contaminated something. Replacing all my reagents to clean ones did nothing, so I figured it was my pipettes, but the problem didn't go away when I thoroughly cleaned them. Eventually, I switched to using different sets of pipettes for each step, and the problem resolved. You may say that I'm not a careful scientist, but while talking to people to resolve my problem, pretty much everyone said they've experienced something similar. None of use proposed and published any crazy theory to justify it.

    62. Re:umm by tehcyder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Roger Penrose has humiliated himself with his quantum mind nonsense

      A claim like that requires some substantiation.

      I know it's official policy on slashdot to believe unequivocally in hard AI and the fucking singularity, but that doesn't mean it's true and it certainly doesn't mean it's nonsense to come up with counter arguments.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    63. Re:umm by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It does raise my suspicions that he listed 'TimeCube' in his citations attached to the paper.

      Well, you can't argue with evidence like that. I'm sold.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    64. Re:umm by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I don't think you'd call that a troll, more a piece of satire against scientific illiteracy.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    65. Re:umm by Raenex · · Score: 1

      However, there was a similar effect, in a way: after he got the award, he proceeded to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the US still hasn't pulled out of either.

      He continued the war in Iraq as he campaigned on. He pulled out the majority of troops but left a contingent. He also said he would ramp up the war in Afghanistan. The problem isn't with Obama, the problem is with the idiots who gave him a Peace Prize for doing absolutely nothing. It's too bad Obama didn't just refuse the prize.

      In addition, he reneged on his campaign promise to close Guantanamo.

      Yes, he did. The cable Wikileaks showed that they were having trouble getting countries to accept them. A failure is still a failure, but I think they genuinely would like to close it and are trying.

      So I guess after he got the Peace Prize, without having actually done anything to earn it, he decided not to even bother doing anything to promote peace.

      That's bullshit. He's tried to promote peace between Israel and Palestinians. He's tried the whole outreach to Muslims thing. He's been working with Russia and trying to be less antagonist towards them. However, anybody who thinks he was going to change the basics of his foreign policy because some fools in Norway gave him a prize he didn't deserve is also a fool.

    66. Re:umm by zepo1a · · Score: 2

      I believe it's the first chord to Help! by the Beatles. ;)

    67. Re:umm by zepo1a · · Score: 1

      er, damn..I meant A Hard Days Night...damn you /. for no edit post function!

    68. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay. Then, instead, we can start with the premise that you have a right to exist.

      Do you agree with that one?

      Aren't rights something that is granted? Who grants any of us the right to exist, the universe?

    69. Re:umm by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The cable Wikileaks showed that they were having trouble getting countries to accept them.

      Uh, from what I've read, the cables basically suggest that rather than holding a bunch of people without a trial in Gitmo, they want to ship them to some other country, where they will be held without a trial. That really has me scratching my head.

      Look, it isn't that hard:

      1. You give the list of prisoners to the attorney general and ask which once he wants to charge with a crime. These guys get shipped to a normal US prison and are arraigned. Normal criminal justice system takes over with its outcomes.

      2. The rest are deported to whatever country issued their passports. That's what you do when somebody shows up on your border and you don't want them in your country.

      It seems like the real fear is that the countries that issued their passports will turn them loose, or that they will be found innocent if charged and then will be deported and again turned loose. Well, what is the point of habeas corpus if you suspend it anytime you think somebody is guilty? What cop arrests somebody they DON'T think is guilty?

      Apparently in some cases there are concerns that that prisoners will be mistreated if they are deported. I don't see that we have many options here. If they really are suspected terrorists I doubt we want to offer them asylum. By all means see if anybody else wants to do so, but you can't just keep them in prison forever without a trial. Maybe give prisoners in these cases the opportunity to stay as long as they want, but they'll be in cells (minus torture) for as long as they do. They're welcome to go home anytime they want to.

      Closing down Gitmo is a matter of will - not difficulty.

    70. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Criticisms like this could destroy science! Next you'll be saying phlogistons are not real and maggots don't spontaneously appear in rotten meat!

    71. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fred Hoyles non-cosmological views were not non-cosmological - it just so happens cosmology is all the ancient peoples really had to study in depth from generation to generation when they developed notions such as panspermia - you just need to adjust for the mindset of the people at the time to take it seriously.

    72. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being skeptical is not the same as asserting the contrary is true.

    73. Re:umm by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I did some research into this, and I agree with your assessment.

    74. Re:umm by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      As wacky as "spooky action at a distance" first sounded back in Einstein's day?

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    75. Re:umm by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I want to add one thing, though. It's not just the President:

      "Both houses of Congress denied Obama's funding requests to shut down Guantanamo and relocate the most dangerous prisoners to the United States. The vote in the Senate was 90-6; all but a half-dozen Democrats opposed their own President. That is why I was optimistic, but only cautiously so."

      http://www.wnyc.org/blogs/its-free-blog/2010/dec/02/leaked-cables-demonstrate-guantanamo-dilemma/

    76. Re:umm by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      NO! That's not how science is done. We must take any idea that contradicts our comfortable theories and ridicule it and strip the author of any and all dignity they have.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    77. Re:umm by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Look, the president is sworn to uphold the constitution. The constitution forbids holding people without trial.

      When the FBI busts somebody for money laundering or whatever, does the president submit a budget request for their arrest/imprisonment to Congress? No, the prisons are paid for, and the laws are in writing, so you just do it.

      The president doesn't need permission to follow the constitution. The last president didn't think he needed permission to NOT follow the constitution, so this should be relatively controversy-free.

      All he needs to do is load the prisoners on a plane, put then in Levenworth or whatever, and now they're on US soil and all those loopholes about jurisdiction go away. Just follow the law, and charge it to the appropriate budget code like any other prison transfer/etc.

      Standing up for what is right is tough politically. I certainly can't have more disdain for Obama than for the guys who voted down the budget request. However, there is nothing really keeping the president from doing his job.

    78. Re:umm by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Exactly, said much better than I was managing.

    79. Re:umm by glassesmonkey · · Score: 1

      The Bullsh*t meter when off when:

      * No mention of coil size or currents used or measured. (300 ohm? what gauge, what inductance, what coil radius) How can they say a "small current'. WTF, what kind of field strength are we talking about. Amps, microamps?

      * How can you measure or emit 7Hz with a coil that is a few inches in diameter?

      * Weirdly using 7Hz and then talking about 7.83Hz Why wouldn't they try these experiments in all of the Schumann resonance frequencies.

    80. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just cloned a Beatles member.

    81. Re:umm by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I don't buy it. By the time Hoyle started to come out strongly against terrestrial abiogenesis we had Urey-Miller and at least the first glimmerings of a methodology for seeking out organic evolution of primitive biotic systems. What's more, his advocacy of panspermia (one can, fairly I think, call him panspermia's major proponent) held at its core (and still does for any panspermia proponent) a fundamental contradiction. If one rejects terrestrial abiogenesis, one still has to accept that at some point, somewhere life did evolve.

      So no, I don't think his mind set is explainable as an artifact of his time. One can certainly say that about his rejection of the Big Bang, because it wasn't until the 1960s that we had the key evidence of the CMBR. But his rejection of "chemical evolution" was, by my assessment, more about an aging scientist, past his prime, putting on the contrarian's hat and attempting to justify it by his expertise in fields of research quite unrelated to organic chemistry and biology.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    82. Re:umm by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Oh give me a break. Lots of scientists who have put forth revolutionary, even earth-shattering theories, have, where they are in fact doing proper science won out. Men like Darwin and Einstein, both revolutionaries in their fields of research, shook the foundations, and faced a good deal of critical analysis, but because the theories were on solid ground, they won the day.

      As Carl Sagan famously said: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    83. Re:umm by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      He's humiliated himself because he has provided no evidence, no mechanism, not even really a theory. He's doing nothing more than what your average pseudoscientific quack does, invoking sciency words and concepts without any kind of underpinning.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    84. Re:umm by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Where all the papers based on Penrose's musings? Where exactly can I find a scientific quantum theory of vertebrate mental processes?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    85. Re:umm by dark+grep · · Score: 1

      The book is called 'The Emperors New Mind'. Personalty, I find his conjecture cogent.

    86. Re:umm by rich_hudds · · Score: 1

      I disagree. He provided a beautiful argument invoking Godel's incompleteness theorem as to why our current approach could never explain consciousness. He probably made a mistake in having a completely speculative attempt at guessing where we might want to look (carbon nanotubes in the brain) to move forward, and this was seized on rather than the main argument. Have you actually read much of Penrose's work? You can't read it and come to the conclusion the guy is a quack, he's one of the few bona fide geniuses we have writing for us mortals.

    87. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      however, anything is possible.

    88. Re:umm by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yes, the book. There are no papers on it. It's never gone through peer review, it's never been published. And it is just that, conjecture, without a shred of actual evidence to back it up. It's science fiction at best, fantasy at worst.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    89. Re:umm by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Is it Chuck Norris chanting?

    90. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I lol'd. What's teh freak-whence-y, Kenneth?

      I read the paper yesterday & wondered htf this could make the news. Reeked of contamination from the get-go.

      I need to up up on his Nobel. This isn't the guy that was the inspiration for 'Altered States', is it? Maybe just Sam and Criminy Krafft's 'The Altered State of Drugachusetts'?

      Could it have really been a "Noble" Prize, as in John Noble, the guy who plays Dr. Walter Bishop of Fringe?

      While quantum entanglement would have been cool, sadly, the whole thing screams of contamination.

    91. Re:umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't it only a hundred or so years ago when Physicist's declared that they knew all that was worth knowing. Didn't einstein struggle with plate tectonics? How was it that Tesla faded away? Isn't the gauging of maxwell's equations questionable? Do we really understand EM?

  2. Oh, now I see! by Gizzmonic · · Score: 3, Funny

    God sent his seed into Mary via Quantum Teleportation! That's how Jesus came to be! But don't give in to Quantum Temptation...or you'll end up in Hell!

    --
    (-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
    1. Re:Oh, now I see! by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Funny

      or you'll end up in Hell!

      That's ok, I'll just tunnel back out.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    2. Re:Oh, now I see! by Rhinobird · · Score: 2

      But don't give in to Quantum Temptation...or you'll end up in Hell!

      ...Maybe. Either way there'll be cats.

      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    3. Re:Oh, now I see! by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 3, Funny

      >

      ...Maybe. Either way there'll be cats.

      Undead cats, until you look at them at least.

    4. Re:Oh, now I see! by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hell has quantum cat-poo. You don't know if it's there until you step in it.

    5. Re:Oh, now I see! by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I thought there either will or won't be cats in Hell, and that the existence of said cats will not in fact occur or fail to occur until you observe Hell. On the other hand, one could argue the same for the existence or lack of existence of Hell itself, which is a rather interesting twist. Perhaps Heaven and Hell are some sort of quantum states, the superposition of which the universe exists in simultaneously. Or perhaps I should just stop posting random thoughts late at night.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Oh, now I see! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Just to clarify, if the cats are not dead, they clearly can't be in Hell, ergo their existence in Hell depends upon observing them.

      And by "until you observe Hell", I meant "you" generally, not you specifically. I have no way to know whether you personally will or will not observe Hell, for precisely the same reason that I do not know if the cat is dead.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re:Oh, now I see! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Either way there'll be cats.

      Somebody set up us the Schroedinger bomb?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:Oh, now I see! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense; you should read Ilium/Olympos by Dan Simmons. They deal with precisely these topics.

    9. Re:Oh, now I see! by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      Basement cats nonetheless!

    10. Re:Oh, now I see! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except this is Hell we're talking about, you always step in it.

    11. Re:Oh, now I see! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I thought there either will or won't be cats in Hell, and that the existence of said cats will not in fact occur or fail to occur until you observe Hell.

      No, no, you're thinking of Schrodinger's Cat, who did or didn't kill a Hooker depending on whether a radioactive isotope decayed or not.

  3. Quite Cool by techsoldaten · · Score: 0

    I did not know my DNA was doing that :)

    Quite honestly, I don't possess the science background to really critique the paper and have to rely on the man's credentials to find this believable. While the idea that cells can somehow send and receive signals about their DNA sequences is beautiful and could explain a lot, this sounds like the reasoning of a scientist biased by living in a wireless culture. Like, this would be Tesla's explanation for transsubstantiation - it's marvelous and at the same time very connected to other technological innovations in the world around us.

    1. Re:Quite Cool by paiute · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Quite honestly, I don't possess the science background to really critique the paper and have to rely on the man's credentials to find this believable.

      I do have the background. It is unbelievable. Even IgNobel Prize winners are laughing at this.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    2. Re:Quite Cool by teknopurge · · Score: 0

      A lot of people laughed at Tesla too. Only took 100 years to prove the man right, for the most part.

    3. Re:Quite Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      IgNobels are given to real science, it just also happens to be silly, wacky, or fun science.

    4. Re:Quite Cool by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      Because IgNobel isn't about bad science, just odd ranging to silly science. (I imagine the parent knows this, just pointing it out for those that don't know)

    5. Re:Quite Cool by leighklotz · · Score: 2

      A lot of people laughed at Tesla too. Only took 100 years to prove the man right, for the most part.

      No, it only took a few years to prove him right on the things he was right about. They're still working on the things he was wrong about.

    6. Re:Quite Cool by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A lot of people laughed at Tesla too. Only took 100 years to prove the man right, for the most part.

      So... basically you're saying that anyone who gets laughed at because of their theories must be right, because Tesla got laughed at and he ended up being right?

      I think you'll get laughed at if you try to present that correlation as being meaningful. But, on the bright side - they laughed at Tesla, so you must be right!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    7. Re:Quite Cool by nomadic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan

    8. Re:Quite Cool by Securityemo · · Score: 2

      Noone can know who's right and who's wrong without doing the work to check it. That's just how it is; simple.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    9. Re:Quite Cool by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      Quite honestly, I don't possess the science background to really critique the paper and have to rely on the man's credentials to find this believable.

      Welcome to the state that 98% of humanity is always in regarding anything beyond highschool science. Remember that magicians are only respected when they produce fantastic results or are feared. Otherwise, wizards are reviled, pitied, and laughed at.

    10. Re:Quite Cool by monkyyy · · Score: 0

      columbus was an idiot, the only thing he got right was that if you sail one way long enough u will hit land.

      also bozo was clearly a genius

      --
      warning pointless sig
    11. Re:Quite Cool by Ozoner · · Score: 1

      Tesla was a Loony-Tune. After 100 years his wacky ideas are till considered wacky. Broadcast power anyone?

    12. Re:Quite Cool by Mithur · · Score: 2

      They laughted at Columbus, and with good reason. The fool have wrong calculations all around, and only plain luck saved him.

    13. Re:Quite Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This quote would be much more convincing if it had at least one counterexample...

    14. Re:Quite Cool by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Tesla pretty much single-handedly invented the AC power generation and distribution system, and went to work for Westinghouse, where his ideas turned into reality. There wasn't much time between the point where Edison was electrocuting elephants to prove the "dangers" of AC and the point where AC power became commonplace; it was well within Tesla's lifetime.

    15. Re:Quite Cool by tibit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More to the point, Tesla's ideas for wireless transmission of energy miss the reality by orders of magnitude. They don't hold up to simple electromagnetic propagation calculations (path loss, for one).

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    16. Re:Quite Cool by tibit · · Score: 1

      Tesla was quite wrong about certain things. His wireless energy transmission idea is unrealizable, for one. He did not "end up" being right about that.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    17. Re:Quite Cool by tibit · · Score: 1

      Just like with Montagnier: being right about A doesn't necessarily make you right about B. Tesla got AC transmission right, Motnagnier discovered HIV allrighty, but they are both wrong about other unrelated things. Get over it. Science is not about how many times you were right or wrong beforehand. Every discovery must stand up to scrutiny in its own right. That's how it works.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    18. Re:Quite Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like people have laughed at Darwin or Galileo in the past.

    19. Re:Quite Cool by paiute · · Score: 1

      IgNobels are given to real science, it just also happens to be silly, wacky, or fun science.

      2001: Astrophysics - Presented to Jack Van Impe and Rexella Van Impe of Jack Van Impe Ministries, Rochester Hills, Michigan, for their discovery that black holes fulfill all the technical requirements for the location of Hell.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    20. Re:Quite Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been hacked apart by the /. crowd a time or two. I don't mind except that they were very very wrong then and well I think we should be a bit more respectful of others. It is fairly obvious regards DNA that it replicates proteins. It is also not obvious to many how it replicates an individual from this. The answer is fairly obvious but will take the scientific community about a century to conclude: DNA projects an electromagnetic holographic image of the individual as a sum of charges in the proteins. (Electrostatic charges etc) This image is fractally reproducing and produces a sequence that repeats in space so that you get cellular differentiation into organs. Defects in the projection result in improper healing when injury occurs. Now I am not saying that the article in question is anything but an experiment and some good questions because that is what it is. It may well have discovered a clue to the functionality of DNA regards this process of forming individuals. Also the article provides a possible explanation for known issues in bacteriology. It has been known for some time that bacteria sometimes simply up and changed "species" in functional conditions. The term for this is polymorphic. (similar in definition to the programming term) The exact conditions and terms for this have always been somewhat of a mystery. I think the best thing here is to start being scientific and start looking at the evidence. Quit heckling and start talking about evidence and seeing if experiments can be replicated. It is fair to be skeptical. It may be fun to heckle but it isn't good science. This study has opened for those who will look some questions that may be very important.

    21. Re:Quite Cool by pezpunk · · Score: 1

      it wouldn't be effective though. "...they also laughed at Daniel McGinnis" who the hell is that?? (look him up if you're curious.) the point is, there are millions of crackpots who were wrong about stuff, but we don't particularly remember them.

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
    22. Re:Quite Cool by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      How do you figure? Wireless power transmission has been proven to work - Intel recently experiments demonstrating such. Some scientists are only now starting to experiment with power transmission over long distances using the ionosphere.

    23. Re:Quite Cool by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Sorry to nitpick, but Tesla really wasn't a scientist, he was an engineer. He didn't come up with the science behind AC power; in fact, AC power itself was proposed by other people before him. What Tesla did was use Maxwell's Equations and design equipment using those which worked. So, as an engineer, he proved the theory correct with his inventions (or more accurately, created evidence to support the theory).

      What exactly did people laugh at him about, which wasn't correct? The only think I can think of offhand is the "Death Ray".

    24. Re:Quite Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were right to laugh at Columbus, he thought he could sail to India!

      If America hadn't been stuck in his path, he'd have died (or either starvation/thirst or mutiny).

      One point that comes of this is, just because this guy might well be wrong, doesn't mean he wont stumble on something cool.

    25. Re:Quite Cool by tibit · · Score: 1

      He didn't prove anything. He couldn't do undergrad physics right.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    26. Re:Quite Cool by tibit · · Score: 1

      Here the scale is uber-important. His approach is not wrong by orders of magnitude, it's worse, it's got an off-by-one on the exponent. Intel's "experiments" and such are doing stuff on the order of hundreds of watts at most, over distances of inches.

      You have to demonstrate transmission of terawatts for thousands of kilometers for this to be feasible. And your losses need to be pretty much where they are with copper distribution we have now.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    27. Re:Quite Cool by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about? You don't need longitudinal waves to build motors and generators. You seem to be going on about some of the later stuff Tesla did that bore no fruit; I'm talking about his work with AC power generation and transmission, such as his invention of the AC generator in 1891. The theory behind this invention is Maxwell's Equations, and his invention showed the theory is correct (or very close). His invention is now the basis of all AC power generation.

      Sure, Tesla went off onto some tangents. Any good inventor does; that's how they push the envelope. But his early work with AC power absolutely did build support for the scientific theories backing them (namely Maxwell's theories). In fact, his inventions show that he deeply understand the underlying mathematics well, something which his rival Edison (a mathematical idiot) did not. Just take a look at Maxwell's Equations: most people don't even know what the symbols mean, much less understand the higher math depicted there.

    28. Re:Quite Cool by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Also, as for not "doing undergrad physics right", Maxwell only published his equations in the 1860s, and then they were grouped together and rewritten in a different notation by Heaviside in the 1880s, in the same decade that Tesla first envisioned his AC generator (he published and patented it in the 1890s). At the time, all this stuff was cutting-edge (and don't forget, they didn't have the internet back then for instant communications).

      This stuff may be undergrad-level now, but I don't think it was back then. I think he can be forgiven for exploring some other tangents that didn't pan out. Even now, there's conjecture about magnetic monopoles, and there's a hypothetical form of the Maxwell's Equations which account for that, even though no one's built any support for that theory.

    29. Re:Quite Cool by tibit · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood. I'm talking about his power-tower wireless transmission projects. AC power distribution has been, um, sufficiently demonstrated in practice ;)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    30. Re:Quite Cool by tibit · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about how it was back then. All that nutters today care about is Tesla's wireless transmission. Somehow AC in their wall sockets is not so spectacular anymore :(

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    31. Re:Quite Cool by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      A couple of points: from my reading, Tesla really did have wireless power transmission working, on a small scale, and allegedly powered the lights in his lab that way. Where he was "off" was that he envisioned wireless power transmission on a worldwide scale, with electricity basically being free.

      Second, wireless power transmission is real, it's just a matter of feasibility. Intel has been doing some research in this area in recent years, and showed something at their IDF a couple years ago IIRC. The problem with it, however, was that it required some rather large antennae. But over short distances, it's perfectly possible, and in fact that's how these "charging mats" for wireless devices work. Of course, like anything using mutual inductance, it works a lot better when the distance is really short.

      But I can understand how people would be interested in some of his more radical ideas, or other peoples' radical ideas in physics, even if they really don't pan out under scrutiny. After all, Maxwell's (/Heaviside's) Equations, which do pan out, are the fundamental basis of pretty much all of electrical engineering, and all the electrical and electronic technologies we have today, including the computer I'm typing on and the internet I'm connected to. If there were some other related branch of physics that actually worked, whether it was magnetic monopoles, longitudinal waves, or Heim's theories, etc., who knows what new technologies such theories could make possible: force fields, artificial gravity, who knows? The idea is very tempting, so it's understandable why people would get excited about such theories, even though they end up not panning out under rigorous investigation unfortunately. At once time, Gauss's Law, Ampere's Law, etc. were all brand-new and probably in doubt too. Electric current creating a magnetic field? Preposterous! Magnetic fields creating electricity? Impossible! Luckily, the naysayers were wrong about those, but there's also been things the scientists ended up being wrong about, such as phlogiston, phrenology, etc.

    32. Re:Quite Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey now, Bozo *was* a genius. He was trying to create mirth. You mess with Bozo, you wind up ROFL, 'cuz he will put you DOWN.

    33. Re:Quite Cool by tibit · · Score: 1

      That's the thing: it will only ever work on a small scale. The writing is on the wall, precisely as you state. To power a whole city wirelessly, you'll pretty much need an antenna covering the total area of the city. The reason that Intel has to use large antennas is because the math works out that way. For a house powered from 1000 miles away, you'll need an antenna the size of a small skyscraper.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    34. Re:Quite Cool by WildBlueYonder · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he made several errors in calculating the distance to Japan. He took the most optimistic estimates of all the distances involved, didn't add any sort of safety buffer to account for the fact he was being optimistic, and then made a couple unit errors to complete the set.

      The royal advisers who wanted to stop him didn't do so because they thought the world was flat, they did so because they knew the world was round, and they knew it was roughly 5 times larger than Columbus had calculated.

      Columbus wasn't a genius, but he was the single luckiest person in the history of mankind. He stumbled across an entire goddamned continent right when he was about to run out of food.

    35. Re:Quite Cool by Mithur · · Score: 1

      And after that, even knowing that it was a new continent, he keeps calling it "Indias". That was because if that wasn't asia, then the deal making him Viceroy (Virrey de indias) was invalid. And that was the reason of the continent named after Americo, and not after Columbus (Colón). A sad history for a sad guy, with tons of luck.

  4. Not the first, won't be the last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Winning a Nobel Prize does not give you a lifetime immunity from saying anything idiotic. It doesn't even prevent you from putting idiotic things into the arxiv. One might think there were a negative correlation between being smart enough to win a prize and stupid enough to say something idiotic in public, but the data suggests otherwise. Winning the Nobel seems to give some of these guys the confidence they need to make complete asses of themselves.

    I am a particle physicist, and needless to say, the theory proposed in this paper is laughably stupid. The authors have no understanding of quantum field theory, and their observations are a sad combination of wishful thinking and poor experimental design.

    1. Re:Not the first, won't be the last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Winning the Nobel seems to give some of these guys the confidence they need to make complete asses of themselves.

      Or maybe it's less about confidence and more about the pragmatic consideration of not losing their job. An adjunct instructor at a community college could probably advocate an idea that was almost certainly wrong without having much to lose (but no one would notice) - but someone with a faculty position at a major research university probably has to maintain a veneer of being level-headed - unless they happen to have a Nobel prize and then they can let it all hang out without worrying finding that they are no longer like a large pizza (able to feed a family of four).

    2. Re:Not the first, won't be the last by gstrickler · · Score: 1

      And the Nobel Prize isn't quite what it used to be, at least the Peace Prize isn't what it used to be. I mean, they gave one to Obama for what they thought he might do, not what he has actually done.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    3. Re:Not the first, won't be the last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought they gave it to him for being the first non-white president in a country well known among first-world nations for its awful history of inter-racial problems. I mean, the US is the country of the KKK and a civil war fought pretty much entirely (as far as the international perspective goes, at least) over the issue of whether or not to keep a big chunk of the population in chattel slavery because of their race. Then they kept up racist, segregationist policies for many more years. Lest anyone claim that's in the distant past, don't forget that Obama was born before the civil rights act of 1964. During his childhood, the idea that someone who wasn't white could someday be the US President was a pipe dream. So, just the fact of his being elected was, rightfully, seen as a major milestone.

      Also, in what way is the peace prize not what it used to be? Frankly, it seems like most of the time it's awarded as an attempt to bribe/shame people into acting decently.

    4. Re:Not the first, won't be the last by Andrew+Cady · · Score: 2

      And the Nobel Prize isn't quite what it used to be, at least the Peace Prize isn't what it used to be. I mean, they gave one to Obama for what they thought he might do, not what he has actually done.

      They also gave one to war criminal Henry Kissinger, and one to genocide apologist Teddy Roosevelt -- I don't think it was ever all that honorable. One must imagine that, had he won, Hitler would have gotten one.

    5. Re:Not the first, won't be the last by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I thought they gave it to him for being the first non-white president in a country well known among first-world nations for its awful history of inter-racial problems. I mean, the US is the country of the KKK

      You think the KKK and slavery way back in the mid 1800s is somehow much more notable than exterminating 6 million people in gas chambers because they're the wrong race/religion/sexual orientation/etc.?

      don't forget that Obama was born before the civil rights act of 1964.

      Which is only 20 years before another first-world nation was gassing millions of Jews and others.

      As for peace, what exactly has Obama done for peace? Pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Nope. Closed Guantanamo? Nope. In fact, he increased troop levels in Afghanistan.

    6. Re:Not the first, won't be the last by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      I am no particle physicist, and I don't gravitate towards crack pottery either. But there was a time when other crazy ideas turned out to be true! Like the sun not being the center, or the earth being spherical. I guess I'm saying that don't be 100% sure all crack ideas are false, rather be 99.99% sure.

      Yes our improved science has narrowed the scope for crack pottery considerably (thank god (another crackpot idea we toil with) for that).

      Yet there are other ideas that we are sure are highly impossible, yet still have fantasies of them coming true (in true sci-fi geek nature), like the existence of extra terrestrial life, time-travel, and infinite bandwidth, storage and processing!

      One thing is for sure: it captures the imagination of believers, or not, alike!

    7. Re:Not the first, won't be the last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Winning a Nobel Prize does not give you a lifetime immunity from saying anything idiotic. It doesn't even prevent you from putting idiotic things into the arxiv."

      Yes, I know that. And it applies to just about any qualification or accomplishment. But there's something weird in the observation that as a population, the Nobel scientists have an unusual level of crazy.

      Come to think of it, it might make an interesting study to try to assess the statistics for "average" scientists turning to crankology versus Nobel scientists. It would be challenging data to collect and to assess properly, but it might be worthy of the Journal of Irreproducible Results :-)

    8. Re:Not the first, won't be the last by GauteL · · Score: 0

      "You think the KKK and slavery way back in the mid 1800s is somehow much more notable than exterminating 6 million people in gas chambers because they're the wrong race/religion/sexual orientation/etc.?"

      I think this has to be the clearest example of Godwin's law I have seen in years. You, sir, have lost the argument and in your FIRST post in the thread. Well done, Sir.

    9. Re:Not the first, won't be the last by bestalexguy · · Score: 1

      being smart enough to win a prize

      You needn't be that smart to win a Nobel Prize

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6868905.ece

    10. Re:Not the first, won't be the last by omnichad · · Score: 1

      What first-world nation gassed millions of Jews in 1984?

    11. Re:Not the first, won't be the last by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Whoops, I meant "after". I was up way too late when I wrote that.

      Anyway, my point is that painting the USA as some kind of horrible country out of the first-world countries is pretty silly when there's another country that has a much worse record in the 20th century (rather than the 19th). The European countries (all of them) don't really have a great record of dealing with minorities (look at the Roma); the main difference with them is that their minority populations aren't generally nearly as large as in the USA. Can anyone point to any European country with a very large minority population which was treated well pre-1965? I don't think so.

  5. Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Myji+Humoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the freaking paper: "Some bacterial and viral DNA sequences have been found to induce low frequency electromagnetic waves in high aqueous dilutions. This phenomenon appears to be triggered by the ambient electromagnetic background of very low frequency. We discuss this phenomenon in the framework of quantum field theory."

    In other words, scientists observed something that makes them say "hmm... that's strange," which leads them to say "hmm... I wonder what could be causing this?" These researchers tried to explain the phenomenon using the best tools that they thought that had: quantum mechanics. (classical EM theory is pretty useless for fields this weak) The linked article is behind a wall, but the title seems to start with "Scorn over claim of teleported DNA"

    Again from the paper: "In this paper we have described the experiments showing a new property of DNA and the induction of electromagnetic waves in water dilutions. We have briefly depicted the theoretical scheme which can explain qualitatively the features observed in these experiments." Crazy observed phenomenon explained by theories that aren't fully accurate? No way!

    The current scientific media seems to increasingly favor sensationalist titles that enable their readers to go "hah, those stupid eggheads, I know better than them that X/Y/Z is impossible! I are smarts!" and this seems to be no different. There is not, has not, and likely will not, be any claims that DNA teleports. However, there has been, is, and likely will be, evidence that DNA interacts with factors beyond easy and simple comprehension. These interactions seem to resemble "phase-locking regime[s]" observed in "two superconducting samples or in the arrays of Josephson junctions," which is pretty far from quack science. /rantover

    --
    Signatures are the new names.
    1. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by paiute · · Score: 4

      However, there has been, is, and likely will be, evidence that DNA interacts with factors beyond easy and simple comprehension. These interactions seem to resemble "phase-locking regime[s]" observed in "two superconducting samples or in the arrays of Josephson junctions," which is pretty far from quack science.

      Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    2. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by fishexe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, there has been, is, and likely will be, evidence that DNA interacts with factors beyond easy and simple comprehension. These interactions seem to resemble "phase-locking regime[s]" observed in "two superconducting samples or in the arrays of Josephson junctions," which is pretty far from quack science.

      Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.

      I don't know about anybody else, but that thing you just said is beyond easy and simple comprehension to my mind...

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    3. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by guyminuslife · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even worse than the armchair layman criticism is the armchair layman over-excitement. I'm imagining that within a year, if it's not out already, there will be a book published called something like, "Unlocking the Quantum Secrets of Your DNA" which cites this article as proof that humans have ESP/telekinesis/magic voodoo powers embedded in their genetic code. If we could only unlock the 90% of our brains that most humans never use*, imagine what we could do with our powers of teleportation!

      * I hate that myth. Every time I hear it from someone, I want to say, "Well, maybe you're not using that 90%, but I sure as shit am." Probably comes from the proportion of the brain tissue comprised of glial cells.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    4. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's actually pretty simple, but I have a PhD in chemistry, so I might be biased

    5. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not DNA, but it has been shown that Chlorophyll implements a type of superconducting behavior using quantum coherence.
      See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100510151356.htm

    6. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 0

      * I hate that myth. Every time I hear it from someone, I want to say, "Well, maybe you're not using that 90%, but I sure as shit am."

      I'm curious. What medications did your physician prescribe for your epilepsy?

    7. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.

      Well, there are Van der Walls interactions. Just to be pedantic. This is Slashdot after all.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Even worse than the armchair layman criticism is the armchair layman over-excitement

      Don't blame the layman; he's wrong, but he's not a layman.

    9. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.

      I cant tell if this is +5 Insightful or a +3 Funny Voyager reference.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    10. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.

      Plenty of citations to keep you busy for a while.

      I think I know what you meant, but the statement as you made it was remarkably silly.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    11. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Omestes · · Score: 2

      It's actually pretty simple, but I have a PhD in chemistry, so I might be biased

      Probably not biased, since I don't have a PhD in anything and understood it. Though I do have a slightly higher than layman science background (specialized in philosophy of science).

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    12. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful? You don't need a PhD just learn as you go

    13. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      * I hate that myth. Every time I hear it from someone, I want to say, "Well, maybe you're not using that 90%, but I sure as shit am."

      I'm curious. What medications did your physician prescribe for your epilepsy?

      A better question: How is he using someone else's extra 90%? Quantum Telepathy?

    14. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by AchilleTalon · · Score: 2

      The title is misleading because it talks about teleportation while the phenomena described, even if it is real, is not teleportation. It makes a copy, it doesn't teleport the original. This isn't teleportation.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    15. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, there has been, is, and likely will be, evidence that DNA interacts with factors beyond easy and simple comprehension. These interactions seem to resemble "phase-locking regime[s]" observed in "two superconducting samples or in the arrays of Josephson junctions," which is pretty far from quack science.

      Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.

      I don't know about anybody else, but that thing you just said is beyond easy and simple comprehension to my mind...

      Then I suggest you take a high school level chemistry course and a 1st semester college biology course.

    16. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by guyminuslife · · Score: 2

      I don't remember; I was busy setting all of the logic circuits in my computer to 1.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    17. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Van der Waals force is a non-covalent interaction. Just to be pedantic. this is Slashdot, after all :p

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    18. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check out Dr. Leonard Horowitz book "DNA: Pirates of the Sacred Spiral"
      see product description at: http://www.amazon.com/DNA-Pirates-Sacred-Leonard-Horowitz/dp/B000A34562

    19. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      Nobody knows for sure how it started, but this myth actually has pretty deep roots.

    20. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I publish a book with an oddly similar name, promise not to sue?

    21. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's another reply to that:
      There are actually people who can use almost 100% of their braincells at the same moment. It's called an epileptic seizure.

    22. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by tibit · · Score: 2

      And then you go and compare their (Sarovar, Ishizaki, Whaley and Fleming's) papers to Montagnier's, and you pretty much know who did the science, and who is just pretending.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    23. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the title is actually very kindly worded toward the fellow.
      "Nobel prize winner in scumann resonance shenigans" would sound mean. so would "Nobel prize winner uncovers magical property of the dna to cure hiv".

      really, about 1/3 of the beginning sounds like it's not written by a madman if lifted from the rest. with the whole paper intact it just seems someone needed some publicity and wanted to create hype around 7hz - and that he'd liked to be invited as a speaker to feelgood-crackpot happenings. you know, to give hope for curing hiv.

      practically all of it seems to be 'new' work too. compare the list of references with the list of people writing the paper and he published it in his own proxy journal - could have just put it online without shenigans if he wanted. they on purpose(or not) also push forward this new phenomena and then tack on a hiv related ending to the findings, whilst actually it would affect a whole lot else than just fighting hiv.

      sure, he discovered hiv, after other people had given samples for him to isolate.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    24. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by 2fuf · · Score: 1

      What I understood (as Stephen Fry in QI explained) is we're actually only using 10% of our brain *at a time*. There are waves of activity throughout the tissue that move around quite rapidly and these waves do cover the entire brain, but only about 10% at a time. I guess this is no different than muscle tissue: you don't expect to be using 100% of your muscles at a time either :-D

    25. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by otie · · Score: 1

      * I hate that myth. Every time I hear it from someone, I want to say, "Well, maybe you're not using that 90%, but I sure as shit am." Probably comes from the proportion of the brain tissue comprised of glial cells.

      Personally, I think we only use 10% of our hearts ;-)

    26. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by paiute · · Score: 2

      Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.

      Plenty of citations to keep you busy for a while.

      I think I know what you meant, but the statement as you made it was remarkably silly.

      Yes, DNA can be methylated, Sherlock. The requirement is that DNA interact with another molecule, not become another molecule.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    27. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by kumma · · Score: 1

      From the freaking paper: "Some bacterial and viral DNA sequences have been found to induce low frequency electromagnetic waves in high aqueous dilutions."

      Do someone find that from some other paper? DNA-extraction looks quite easy and I could send and receive signals via USRP and try to detect if there is resonance. It might be an interesting hobby project even, if doomed to fail.

    28. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      How do you think DNA gets methylated? The Methylation Fairies?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    29. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you use more than 10% of your brain at once, there is a name for it:

      seizure.

      Apparently, they aren't all that desirable.

    30. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by kumma · · Score: 1

      www.rifetechnologies.com/davos2009-D.doc http://www.physics.ucla.edu/research/biophysics/pubs/pdf/_paper_ol_dipole.pdf They are talking about GHz freqs (not so low). Then "electrical conductivity of DNA" gives quite many hits too.

    31. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Say, that's a catchy title. Could you help me out with some chapter headings too? :)

    32. Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the Lord said," you can say to this mountain be thou removed and be thou cast into the sea and if you had faith enough that it would happen when you say it would then it would happen!", faith, have faith, and we people may very well already possess what is seemingly powers of miraculous wonder!, the power to heal and more! and the Lord said "if someone can do it, anyone can do it!" amen!

  6. Get back to me when by mswhippingboy · · Score: 3, Funny

    they figure out a way to connect my WiFi to my DNA so I can use my body to connect to the internet and stop paying these ridiculous 3G prices.

    --
    Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
    1. Re:Get back to me when by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

      Oh, very snarky. You will be sorry when it turns out the author is right and you go on a data plan when you die!

    2. Re:Get back to me when by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Don't be silly. Being able to wi-fi with your DNA won't save you a penny on your Internet connection, because you'll still need a base station. You can skip the hardware upgrade cycle, though.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  7. New excuse ... by ignavus · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Honest! My DNA teleported into her. I never touched her. I swear it."

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
    1. Re:New excuse ... by progkeys · · Score: 0, Troll

      So... you mod the parent 4, funny, for making a tasteless joke about rape, that's not even funny, and you mod down the person that calls them out. Not cool, guys.

    2. Re:New excuse ... by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 5, Funny

      So... you mod the parent 4, funny, for making a tasteless joke about rape, that's not even funny, and you mod down the person that calls them out. Not cool, guys.

      Sounds like someone has some issues. Show us, on this doll, where the DNA teleported into you...

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    3. Re:New excuse ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not necessarily about rape. Could be interpreted as contesting paternity, ie no coercion at time of sex but denying child is his. Is that more palatable?

    4. Re:New excuse ... by FrankSchwab · · Score: 1

      Where in that joke is even the implication of rape?

      --
      And the worms ate into his brain.
    5. Re:New excuse ... by martas · · Score: 1

      +1 stick up ass, a.k.a. mis-calibrated offensiveness detector

    6. Re:New excuse ... by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Whose to say its about rape? I can pick various scenarios where this statement could be said without rape being involved.

      "I didn't know up your daughter, my DNA quantumly teleported*", for instance... This was the first context I thought of, at least. Before people dragged rape into it. Don't know why you have rape on the mind.

      * Wow, Chrome's spell check doesn't think "teleport" is a word?

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    7. Re:New excuse ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you should stop twisting innocent sex jokes into sickening rape fantasies.

      Trying to claim someone made a tasteless rape joke when there was none is pretty damn tasteless of you.

    8. Re:New excuse ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... you mod the parent 4, funny, for making a tasteless joke about rape, that's not even funny, and you mod down the person that calls them out. Not cool, guys.

      Seems more like a joke about making an excuse to your significant other about how another woman had a baby with your DNA.

    9. Re:New excuse ... by Veneratio · · Score: 2

      So... you mod the parent 4, funny, for making a tasteless joke about rape, that's not even funny, and you mod down the person that calls them out. Not cool, guys.

      You fucking pussy.

      --
      "Sarcasm is for *winners*, Alan." - Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)
    10. Re:New excuse ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is it a rape joke? I read it as a "it ain't my baby" joke.

      Maybe you just have issues?

    11. Re:New excuse ... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2

      "Thank you, Mr Assange. The prosecution rests."

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    12. Re:New excuse ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... you mod the parent 4, funny, for making a tasteless joke about rape, that's not even funny, and you mod down the person that calls them out. Not cool, guys.

      Who said anything about rape? This could be a very real danger to the guys who like to woo ladies with magnetic fields and tubes of saline. Not cool to call these people rapists!

    13. Re:New excuse ... by GrifterCC · · Score: 0

      Excellent! Another rape joke, Now With Pedophilia! You keep it classy, Arthur Grumbine and mods.

    14. Re:New excuse ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thumbs up!!! Thanks for the laugh!

    15. Re:New excuse ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh, I guess I just read it as a guy explaining why his neighbor's wife was having his kid...

      Rape never entered my head till you spoke up.

    16. Re:New excuse ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where exactly did you get rape from? Now an attempt to avoid a shotgun wedding I see clearly in the joke.

    17. Re:New excuse ... by ignavus · · Score: 1

      So... you mod the parent 4, funny, for making a tasteless joke about rape, that's not even funny, and you mod down the person that calls them out. Not cool, guys.

      You've never heard of a paternity suit?

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
  8. Simplified by mibe · · Score: 5, Informative

    My background is strictly biology, so a lot of the physics stuff goes over my head, but I can decipher the sciencey jargon well enough to read the paper. Anyway, here's what they saw:

    bacterial DNA in tube 1 -> water tube surrounded by 7hz field -> tube 2 containing PCR ingredients minus template -> recovery of bacterial DNA sequence from tube 2

    The explanation, as you may have guessed, is super complicated. It involves the hypothetical creation of so-called water nanostructures (water memory anyone?), but apparently the ~7hz field is important and recapitulated in the math somehow that's opaque to me.

    So that's the paper for dummies, so to speak. If anyone can elaborate or correct in simple terms I'd be happy to read it; this is cool stuff.

    1. Re:Simplified by Phat_Tony · · Score: 2

      This sounds familiar.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    2. Re:Simplified by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Very. You remember the "yogurt experiment"?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:Simplified by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      2 words: Schumann Resonance. I wonder if there is a relationship to life taking hold on this planet and the OP's intreguing discovery...

    4. Re:Simplified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > The explanation, as you may have guessed, is super complicated.

      Really? The explanation I guessed is pretty simple: "We spilled some bacteria in tube 2."

    5. Re:Simplified by mibe · · Score: 1

      Of course your explanation may differ from the one given, but (again) as you may have guessed, they aren't going to put forward "we messed up" as an explanation, so something considerably more complicated must be invoked.

    6. Re:Simplified by SQL+Error · · Score: 2

      > The explanation, as you may have guessed, is super complicated.

      Really? The explanation I guessed is pretty simple: "We spilled some bacteria in tube 2."

      Bacteria are everywhere. No need to even spill anything.

      Try it again with cow DNA, Mister Nobel Scientist guy. You'd probably notice if there were spare cows wandering about the lab.

    7. Re:Simplified by Skreems · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Really? The explanation I guessed is pretty simple: "We spilled some bacteria in tube 2."

      I think you missed the part where not having DNA in tube 1, not having the coil, not having the coil powered up, etc. all yielded negative results. Unless they just happened to spill bacteria on all 12 out of 12 positive trials, and spill none on the dozens of negative control trials, which is relatively improbable.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    8. Re:Simplified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? The explanation I guessed is pretty simple: "We spilled some bacteria in tube 2."

      I think you missed the part where not having DNA in tube 1, not having the coil, not having the coil powered up, etc. all yielded negative results. Unless they just happened to spill bacteria on all 12 out of 12 positive trials, and spill none on the dozens of negative control trials, which is relatively improbable.

      Without observing the actual procedure you have no valid reason to assume it's improbable. I can think of plenty of situations where experiments looked good at first, but when a neutral observer watched the researches they pointed out many mistakes in terms of actually performing the work, even when the general procedure itself was sound.

      It makes me cringe every time I see people gather samples of some substance out in the field... rarely do they wear masks or gloves, holding containers are rarely sterilized and are not kept hermetically sealed prior to use, etc. Basically every fundamental lab procedure which should never be violated is in actual practice violated routinely. This is a BIG part of why independent verification of results is SO important to scientific experimentation.

    9. Re:Simplified by pseudochaos · · Score: 0

      Is it possible that the second tube wasn't in fact free of every single tiny bacterium? That, more likely explanation, would account for this phenomenon a lot better than all kinds of quantum craziness.

      --
      "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    10. Re:Simplified by geekoid · · Score: 1

      not nearly as improbably as the wavelengths of 7hz actually having an impact on something that small.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Simplified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The explanation is, of course, that the 7 Hz field is only 2 Hz from the infamous Brown Note Frequency of 9 Hz. You can read all about it here.

    12. Re:Simplified by thunderclap · · Score: 1

      isn't 7hz the mythical frequency of the brown note. (not suggesting it exists just that if it did that would be the frequency)

  9. You can have a cake and eat it too. by louzer · · Score: 1

    If this is true, then medical quacks and new age groups are going to have a field day using this as the justification for everything mystical and magical. I bet they will make a lotaf money by quoting this Nobel Laureate.

    --
    Heroes die once, cowards live longer.
    1. Re:You can have a cake and eat it too. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      If this is true,

            It's not true. But that has never stopped charlatans and quacks before. Why would a little thing like lack of truth stop them this time? The world is full of gullible people just begging to be separated from their money.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:You can have a cake and eat it too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If this is true, then medical quacks and new age groups are going to have a field day using this as the justification for everything mystical and magical. I bet they will make a lotaf money by quoting this Nobel Laureate.

      Take off the first five words and it'll probably still happen (minus the money being low on taffy)

    3. Re:You can have a cake and eat it too. by oldhack · · Score: 1

      They already do regardless.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    4. Re:You can have a cake and eat it too. by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      perhaps our laureate was paid by senor homoeopathy to plonk this doozy in the arxiv?

    5. Re:You can have a cake and eat it too. by Godskitchen · · Score: 1

      Seriously. Remember when we used to think vaccines could cause autism! Sheesh. What idiots we were!

    6. Re:You can have a cake and eat it too. by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "we"?

    7. Re:You can have a cake and eat it too. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Heh, it's worse than you think. As a doctor I have representatives from drug companies in my office all the time, telling me about all their new wonder-drugs. I only let them in for the free samples of older drugs that are known to work, and which I can give to poorer patients. The new stuff I simply don't prescribe until a few years have passed without a recall.

      You would be amazed at the crap that goes on. It's not just uneducated peasants that peddle "snake oil".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  10. More like questionable caliber by Atmchicago · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The paper is in Arxiv, and has not been peer-reviewed. They refer to Craig Venter as "G. Vinter." I won't hold my breath until these results are replicated by third parties.

    --

    You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.

    1. Re:More like questionable caliber by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      The paper is in Arxiv, and has not been peer-reviewed. They refer to Craig Venter as "G. Vinter." I won't hold my breath until these results are replicated by third parties.

      The only way this is going to get replicated by third parties is after the party has been going on for a long, long time and aqueous dilutions of certain organic solvents have been extensively studied by all involved.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:More like questionable caliber by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this, partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sorts of parties.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    3. Re:More like questionable caliber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, if that can end up discovering that wine increases super-conductivity, then why not.

  11. Re:You are the unified field of existence. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    And you think that spamming this 3 or 4 times on slashdot is going to help? GTFO.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  12. It is not quantum teleportation by cjonslashdot · · Score: 5, Informative

    I just read the original article, and it is not claiming quantum teleportation.

    It is claiming that electromagnetic resonances are set up around polymers in water solution, and if the water contains the right building blocks (monomers), then the resonances can reconstruct copies of the original polymers. This apparently occurs even if there are physical barriers separating the polymers from the monomer solution.

    The article relies on quantum mechanics only to the extent that certain quantum mechanical models of water molecule behavior (coherence domains) are used, since "classical" models that rely on energy levels are not sufficient. There is no claim of teleportation that I could see.

    1. Re:It is not quantum teleportation by cosm · · Score: 1

      But then it doesn't sound cool! If only mainstream media would realize that what is considered 'dry' is still actually quite amazing when you think about it. I believe the concept of the electromagnetic field permeating charged objects and exerting 'spooky-action-at-a-distance' is just as captivating as 'teleportation'.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    2. Re:It is not quantum teleportation by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

      Hm, now that sounds reasonable, if somewhat weird. If it holds up under further examination and applies to polymers other than DNA, it might have some terrifically useful applications in industrial chemical synthesis.

      --
      Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    3. Re:It is not quantum teleportation by moteyalpha · · Score: 2

      I did not RTFA, but I have worked with DNA and protein affinities and it is fairly obvious that there is more going on than just local electrostatic attractions. I don't doubt that more is going on, but to characterize it as quantum teleportation is likely more to do with getting read than serious assertion. It seems that quantum teleportation is the new buzz word that people like. It won't materialize ( pun intended ).

    4. Re:It is not quantum teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scaled up, if the effect is real, the process would allow factories to create plastic oligomers from monomers in large quantities without the currently expensive reaction processes required to do so.

    5. Re:It is not quantum teleportation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Having worked in a lab where quantum teleportation (QT) was actually performed, this paper has nothing to do with QT. The very notion of copying DNA using this mechanism leaves it very much at odds with QT, since QT is only important due to the intrinsic inability to copy quantum information.

      I also have to say any paper that defines an acronym but then never uses it, must be bad. This paper defines QFT for quantum field theory, but only uses the term quantum field theory in the abstract and then once in the text. Lame.

    6. Re:It is not quantum teleportation by Knutsi · · Score: 1

      If this turns our to be real and reproducible, perhaps it is a phenomenon that could shed some light on the development of early life on Earth? (:

    7. Re:It is not quantum teleportation by cjonslashdot · · Score: 1

      Indeed. This might be an entirely new mechanism for transcription.... If this bears up under scrutiny, this might deserve a Nobel Prize.

  13. I need more power... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to the transporters!

  14. OK, I misread by PCM2 · · Score: 3, Informative

    When I first read this story I misread the first line and though the scientist had won the Nobel Prize for this research. Later I realized I recognized his name. Luc Montagnier, FWIW, won the Prize in 2008 for being the first to isolate HIV (at a time when its exact role in AIDS was unknown). He's since remained pretty prominent in HIV/AIDS research.

    This other research, however, seems a lot more fringe-y and questionable, and now that I know the Nobel Committee has not endorsed it I will view it with a serious dose of skepticism until his findings can be repeated.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:OK, I misread by dimethylxanthine · · Score: 0

      This other research, however, seems a lot more fringe-y and questionable, and now that I know the Nobel Committee has not endorsed it I will view it with a serious dose of skepticism until his findings can be repeated.

      I find your lack of faith disturbing.

    2. Re:OK, I misread by macshit · · Score: 1

      I think it's kind of cool that he manages to successfully be both a serious researcher and a serious crackpot at the same time... :]

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    3. Re:OK, I misread by geekoid · · Score: 1

      which was a stupid thing for Darth Vader to say. The Force requires no faith, as he should be choking the guy.

      What should have happened is DV use the force to pick him up and toss him around the room, and then say "Do you understand it's science,bitch"

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:OK, I misread by brizzadizza · · Score: 2

      Serious researcher= agrees with my preconceived notions about how nature behaves. Crackpot= Produces research that challenges those notions and must be wrong. I don't even know why humanity pursues science at this point. 250+ comments aptly demonstrate that slashdot commentators know exactly how the universe behaves at all levels and surprising or preliminary research is clear wooery of the basest and most brain-dead sort.

  15. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by afabbro · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you want to make sense of the Unified Field and you want to know who John Hagelin is

    ...then you need to read more James Randi and less new age crackpottery.

    Seriously - this is a guy who claims that if enough people in a city do TM meditation, crime rates will fall and a Vedic Defense Shield will prevent them from war.

    John Hagelin appeals to people who think What the Bleep Do We Know and The Secret were science documentaries.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  16. An Archimedes moment of sorts. by Sitnalta · · Score: 1

    After reading this article, one word comes to mind. I think it sums up all 10 pages, and especially the slashdot summery quite well.

    BULLSHIT.

  17. Cough, cough... by mesri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To put it simply, this is BS, on all levels. The summary is just wrong, teleportation doesn't even appear in the article on arXiv. But then the arXiv article is ridiculous. It's a thinly veiled attempt to play with homeopathy: "high dilutions", "mechanical agitation between each dilution", and low frequency EM taking the place of "concussing", "water nanostructures" formed on the DNA which can be used to recreate the DNA sequence? And the paper is totally amateur hour. In summary: It's BS.

    1. Re:Cough, cough... by Skreems · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a thinly veiled attempt to play with homeopathy

      From TFA:

      In each cycle it was diluted 10-fold, and "ghost" DNA was only recovered after between seven and 12 dilutions of the original. It was not found at the ultra-high dilutions used in homeopathy.

      So, not so much. Unless by "play with" you mean "dismiss offhand". I really don't get why so many people in the commentary are being completely dismissive of this as new age nonsense. He's not obviously trying to push an agenda in the paper as far as I could tell. It really seems like he saw some weird effects and documented them, and that's all. Either he's flat out lying, or he really saw something odd which hasn't been fully explained. Why assume that he's lying before any independent trials are done?

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    2. Re:Cough, cough... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Because it has the same plausibility and the experiment setup up make no sense? And the conclusion seem to show incredible ignorance of electronics? and they break our current understanding of physics? which is fine, however you need some pretty good experiments and studies to show that. This is not a good experiment or study.

      I actually don't assume he is lying, I do think he is wrong. Mostly because of the lengths of the wave length at 7hz and the tools he is using aren't really designed for that.

      And ALWAYS assume they are incorrect until good independent studies are done and repeated.

      \

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Cough, cough... by Skreems · · Score: 1

      Incorrect, sure. It's the part where a bunch of comments assume he's either malicious or insane that I don't get.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
  18. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seriously - this is a guy who claims that if enough people in a city do TM meditation, crime rates will fall

    This could easily be true. The criminals are too busy meditating to be able to commit the crimes...

  19. WTF? by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's an interesting claim. Most of the DNA molecules would somehow have to be in sync to get audio-frequency waveforms out. How's that supposed to happen?

    I can't speak for the physics, but the experimental setup seems bogus. See Fig. 1. They have a coil with a test tube inside it. The coil is connected to an audio amplifier and then to the audio input on a laptop, where some frequency analysis takes place. They claim that a solution of DNA in water emits signals which can be read by that setup.

    A setup like that is enormously sensitive to any electric or magnetic fields in the vicinity, mechanical vibration, and even mechanical motion of conductive objects, like fan blades. Like most low-level RF experiments, something like that has to be conducted in a electrically and mechanically quiet area. (RF engineers use either RF-shielded rooms or wooden boxes/sheds in open fields.)

    The history of "polywater" is relevant here. There, it was for a while thought that water could somehow polymerize and change properties. It turned out to be a contamination problem. Here, the authors talk about previously unknown "nanostructures" in water.

    1. Re:WTF? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      A setup like that is enormously sensitive to any electric or magnetic fields in the vicinity, mechanical vibration, and even mechanical motion of conductive objects, like fan blades. Like most low-level RF experiments, something like that has to be conducted in a electrically and mechanically quiet area. (RF engineers use either RF-shielded rooms or wooden boxes/sheds in open fields.)

      Monster Cables for the win! It's the only way this will work.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  20. FTFA by mswhippingboy · · Score: 0

    Full details of the experiments are not yet available, but the basic set-up is as follows. Two adjacent but physically separate test tubes were placed within a copper coil and subjected to a very weak extremely low frequency electromagnetic field of 7 hertz. The apparatus was isolated from Earth's natural magnetic field to stop it interfering with the experiment. One tube contained a fragment of DNA around 100 bases long; the second tube contained pure water.

    After 16 to 18 hours, both samples were independently subjected to the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a method routinely used to amplify traces of DNA by using enzymes to make many copies of the original material. The gene fragment was apparently recovered from both tubes, even though one should have contained just water (see diagram).

    DNA was only recovered if the original solution of DNA - whose concentration has not been revealed - had been subjected to several dilution cycles before being placed in the magnetic field. In each cycle it was diluted 10-fold, and "ghost" DNA was only recovered after between seven and 12 dilutions of the original. It was not found at the ultra-high dilutions used in homeopathy.

    Physicists in Montagnier's team suggest that DNA emits low-frequency electromagnetic waves which imprint the structure of the molecule onto the water. This structure, they claim, is preserved and amplified through quantum coherence effects, and because it mimics the shape of the original DNA, the enzymes in the PCR process mistake it for DNA itself, and somehow use it as a template to make DNA matching that which "sent" the signal (arxiv.org/abs/1012.5166).

    All I can say is, pretty spooky action at a distance!

    --
    Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an oncoming train.
  21. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Funny

    John Hagelin appeals to people who think What the Bleep Do We Know and The Secret were science documentaries.

    Hey now. Scoff all you like, but The Secret helped me manifest a twelve inch pianist.

  22. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

    Depends on if the criminals are doing TM meditation too, I guess. Hard to stick up a liquor store and meditate at the same.

    --
    Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
  23. Eons ago! by Atmanman · · Score: 1

    Okay. I'll try. So, like, a really, really long time ago, the life force we call Chi permeated the universe. The Green Chi generated a great upwelling of life across the cosmos. Electromagnetic Panspermia Theory anyone?

  24. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by NEDHead · · Score: 0

    I believe that is spelled penis, and I doubt it.

  25. Industrial chemical synthesis by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    A beowulf cluster of water sprites, performing genetic algorithm computation using genetic material.

    --
    -kgj
  26. next Dilbert episode by Odinlake · · Score: 1

    [silence]
    Dilbert: ...-quantum!
    Ashok: aaaaaaaa! [jumps out of window]
    Pointy haired boss: I like it!

  27. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    Beam me up, Scotty!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  28. my mind is vibrating at 7Hz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is what happens when you roll a marijuana cigarette using your Nobel Prize paper.

  29. Misleading Summary. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    The word "teleportation" does not appear anywhere in the original article. Seems like another case of media misinterpreting scientific articles to fit popular pseudoscience notions. The findings are about electromagnetic "signals". The signals may remotely affect other DNA molecules, causing them to emulate the original molecule. How is that teleportation?

    1. Re:Misleading Summary. by tragedy · · Score: 2

      Errrm. You're joking right? How is that teleportation? It actually goes beyond "quantum teleportation" and hits the definition of the classic sci fi molecular teleporter that takes matter on one end sends information about it as a signal and reconstructs the object molecule by molecule from other atoms at the other end.

  30. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by RobertM1968 · · Score: 2

    Hey now. Scoff all you like, but The Secret helped me manifest a twelve inch pianist.

    I believe that is spelled penis, and I doubt it.

    But if you stop and think about it, the 12" pianist claim does seem a lot more believable, doesn't it?

  31. Well at least I can explain to my wife... by F34nor · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...how I got her best friend pregnant.

    1. Re:Well at least I can explain to my wife... by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yes, of-course, your penis is a DNA frequency emitter.

    2. Re:Well at least I can explain to my wife... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      ...how I got her best friend pregnant.

      Schrodinger's cat will have it good compared to what you'll get

  32. Re:I Heard a Cry by Walter+Wart · · Score: 2

    ...as if a million bat-scat crazy homeopaths and refused to be silenced.

    --
    The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
  33. Well hey now... by Essequemodeia · · Score: 1

    Looks like I've got some new ammo for those paternity test results. Those little quantum-tunneling buggers! Nothing in space-time could have held them back!

  34. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2

    Except the point is that if enough people meditate regularly -- the original idea was 20 minutes, twice a day -- then you can live an otherwise normal life, but it'll lower crime.

    I grew up in Fairfield, IA. I was somewhat disappointed when I checked out the skepdic entry on TM only to find that the strongest debunk was James Randi calling up the Fairfield Police Department and asking whether the influx of meditators had reduced crime. Nope, crime rates had increased if anything, but were pretty typical either way.

    It's a good argument, but I'm kind of disappointed. I'm going to have to deconstruct it sometime. It seems to get either respected or ignored, never seriously challenged other than people saying, "You think people can fly?" and laughing hysterically. It's not really a threat, so I can see why other absurdities would be a bigger target, but it also means the meditators themselves never have to really think hard about why they believe what they do.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  35. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2

    So... erm... Let's see the evidence. Having skimmed the paper, I just don't see it claiming what Hagelin claims.

    I was a meditator for years. I grew up in it. I'm better off without it now, but I'd still very much like to be proven wrong, if only because it'd be really cool to know how humans can levitate, if, in fact, they can.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  36. "has not been revealed"? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    DNA was only recovered if the original solution of DNA - whose concentration has not been revealed - had been subjected to several dilution cycles before being placed in the magnetic field.

    I thought the point of publishing was that we could replicate your experiments? Is it normal to withhold information like this?

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  37. Once Again.... by Caraig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    arXiv is NOT peer-reviewed, and anyone can put anything up there. (Okay, that's an exaggeration, but it lacks the intrinsic rigor of a peer-reviewed journal.) It's the Wikipedia of science papers.

    While arXiv is filled with some neat (and some not-so-neat) ideas for science fiction writers, I'd be reluctant (to put it mildly) to give credence to anything that sounds weird that resides there. Seriously, I know some cool stuff appears there, but we've been through this before. When is /.'s staff going to stop citing arXiv papers as being somehow more plausible than the Dean drive?

    --
    "I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
    1. Re:Once Again.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, "arXiv is NOT peer-reviewed, and anyone can put anything up there." seems a little rough.
      The peer review you're speaking of is also highly subjective even by if done by good Scientists. We all are subjective :) Even you.

      I for one find arXiv to be quite good and a lot of serious scientists seems to feel the same. It's like hacking on Wikipedia. Yeah there are some strange wikis, like those discussing gen4 nuclear powerstations as if they already was here and 'working' :) BS as I see it. But they are still a free valuable source of information for us all. To leave it all in the hands of people in ivory towers is not the best solution either, as history can show us if we just bother to look. Although you are right in that the same can be said for some of the papers on arXiv you better remember that it also allows for those same ideas uncomfortable for mainstream physics. And that's a good thing :) I guess Einstein would have published there first too :) before finding that mainstream 'acceptance' for his newfangled ideas.

      Be cool.

      Yoron.

  38. I am not surprised by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 1

    For some reason, people like being kinda stupid and magicy with science. I remember that one movie, the "what the bleep.." atrocity. It feels like that. Or like any time someone magics up cold fusion with a stick of metal and another stick of metal.

  39. the dullness of Krugman by epine · · Score: 2

    Krugman's economic views are coherent, not terribly deep, and potentially wrong, yet he does a more credible job of putting his ideas forward than the people who hate his ideas most (of putting their own ideas forward).

    In this context, "potentially wrong" is a merit point, as distinct from ideological views, which are never wrong.

    I see no reason to lump Krugman in with a flagrant quack. One of his least deep observations is that "fiscal restraint" in government does a lot more to serve the mid to long term interests of the financial elite than it does to help out a family having trouble paying their mortgage during a recession caused by excesses of the aforementioned elite. Or maybe this is so obvious it can only be seen with bifocals.

    Unfortunately, the rhetorical temperature in Washington permits a dancing gorilla to wander around the basketball court without the general public cluing in. Krugman speaks against this, which makes him dumb by association.

  40. biology is not a real science by z-j-y · · Score: 0

    Occasionally there can be a few genuine findings, just by the infinitive improbability times infinite number of postdocs.

    Overall the field is not really science. That's not a problem. But among biology researchers there are too many bad apples, it's a shame.

  41. the wavelength is larger than the lab by gothmogged · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is pretty nonsensical. At 7 Hz the wavelength for sound in water would be hundreds of meters and light would be many order of magnitude more. How would such an em field be involved in forming nanometer resolution structures in water?

    This is yet another case of wild extrapolation from measurements that are at or beyond the limits of the tools being used.

  42. I would like to be the first... by Agent__Smith · · Score: 0

    I would like to be the first to welcome our new quantum teleporting overlords...

    --
    "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
  43. Linus Pauling by sodafox · · Score: 1

    To point out that Luc Montagnie is a Nobel Prize winner is just setting up for an argument from authority. I am reminded of Linus Pauling and his Vitamin C mega-dosing.

  44. What is expected is found. by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would have more faith in this experiment if the genetic testing of the "receiving tubes" was done by a person other than the one who ran the experiments on them. Maybe he found what he was looking for because he expected it to be found.

    1. Re:What is expected is found. by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      "I would have more faith in this experiment if . . . testing of the "receiving tubes" was done by a person other than the one who ran the experiments. . ."

      Wait, so the only way for science to be valid is if the person doing the experiment is NOT the person doing the experiment? Bu. . . wha?!?

      Did you mean the analysis of the data/results? Or, having multiple experimenters each doing an isolated *part* of the experiment, blind to what the other person was doing?

    2. Re:What is expected is found. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      It is human nature to be biased to see what we expect to see. If the person running the PCR had no idea which vial was a control or had gone through the coil this bias would be removed. This is an accepted scientific method. It would be considered a single blind test.

      This is done all the time in medical research. In that case the doctor(s) evaluating a patient's progress is not told whether the patient in in the treatment group or the control group. The patient is also not given that information. This is called a double blind test and is a requirement for FDA approval.

  45. Re:Quite Cool ...laughed at Tesla too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They laughed at the Wright Brothers... They laughed at Einstein ... they also laughed at Bozo the Clown!"

    -attributed to Carl Sagan

  46. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

    This Hagelin fellow is intruiging.

    He used to work on pretty sophisticated and legitimate science where he did some valuable research and now he working for the Maharishi trying to link things like meditation with actual physics.

    What has caused such a dramatic change?

    Seems that after he joined the Maharishi movement, he still did some things that were actually scientific and his approach to politics is still a lot more scientific than the ruling political parties in the US.

    I'd just like to know how he can combine these two polar opposites in his mind.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  47. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

    I don't meditate and I don't believe in any of the supernatural benefits is has other than it simply being a way of relaxing a bit.
    But in what way are you better off without meditating? Did it harm you in any way or cause problems?

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  48. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Insightful

        Well, people can levitate. To understand how, a separation of mysticism, mythology, and technology must be maintained.

        You can watch a magician (mysticism) make a human float, and he/she will have the audience believing exactly what they saw.

        You can hear and read about how a religious figure (mythology) floated.

        And then you can be taught (technology) hundreds of ways to make a person levitate. theatrical flying harnesses, forced air, glass floor/ceiling and perspective. How about not just a person, but an entire train full of people? Even something as simple (and expensive, and stupid) as hanging from a rope under a helicopter (ala Robert Downey Jr in Air America).

        Illusionists by a variety of names have been making people believe in impossible things. All it takes is an audience to believe the mysticism or mythology, before asking to understand the technology. Too many people are willing to believe the "miracle" answer, without understanding the technological answer.

        If I read your comment right, you've grown beyond the mysticism answers. If we can only drag a few billion other people past the threshold, humanity would be in good shape.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  49. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    I'm better off with, conservatively, 40 minutes of extra time per day.

    And that's just the meditation itself -- it's not just that I've stopped meditating. I've left the Movement. This means I no longer have, as a goal in life, meditating to achieve enlightenment so as to break the cycle of reincarnation and become one with the universe. It means I no longer believe in Vedic astrology, or levitation, or any of the dozens of other crazy things I used to believe.

    It also means I speak my mind, instead of always being careful to "speak the sweet truth."

    And I'm certainly better off with the $5k or so I didn't spend getting the Sidhi program.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  50. just make sure by Errtu76 · · Score: 2

    there are no flies in the vicinity when you try it

  51. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by Hatman39 · · Score: 1

    No no, you got it all wrong. Criminals will do crime still. However, other people will be too busy meditating to report the crime. The same goes for war, people will be too busy meditating to fight for freedom, so they will just be dominated. No fighting, no war.

  52. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by clickety6 · · Score: 1

    Hey now. Scoff all you like, but The Secret helped me manifest a twelve inch pianist. I got a cat who wouldn't pay for a round of drinks...

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  53. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    you've both got it wrong, it's a plan to introduce thought police.

    Classical signs of propaganda and miss-director, will allow an extra page added to the bill to outlaw free-thinking, but covertly due to the legal requirement of meditation.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  54. wow! just WOW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was confused by this paper until I got to the sentence "clinical trials in
    West and South Africa to test new therapeutics is planned" and remembered that the study organism is a "close relative of HIV"

    I for one am looking forward to the investment opportunities that will no doubt present themselves to invest in miracle magnet wrist bracelets. We should all be taking this research very seriously. I think they're on to something big!

  55. Ouch! Slashdot pseudo-science by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    That's correct, the article is a disaster. Poor Max Planck. Most people don't listen to what he said.

    Slashdot fooled again!

  56. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I'd just like to know how he can combine these two polar opposites in his mind.

    I'd just like to know how you know they're polar opposites without scientific study.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  57. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by jdpars · · Score: 1

    As much as we want to believe that the magician has actually caused someone to float, we know he hasn't. That person is still following every last law of physics. The magician is inherently deceptive. The idea of meditating to cause levitation, then, either is also deceptive, or has nothing to do with magicians.

  58. So if I could control that by Snaller · · Score: 1

    I would never be late again!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  59. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

    You're spot on. Any guru starting to focus on levitation, is fooling both themselves and others. It has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality.

    A real guru will make you realize yourself, without resorting to tricks or deceit. There's nothing advanced or hard about it.

  60. but did he prove it... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Was he able to prove it without a doubt?
    I can say that the world is flat, until I am proven wrong, I can say what ever I want, if I dare not prove myself.
    Teleportation is a long shot, more like networking, you use one cell to carry a message to the next until it reaches its intended cell target.

  61. armchair layman. . . by JSBiff · · Score: 1

    So if an "armchair quarterback" isn't really a quarterback, does that mean your armchair layman is *really* a scientist, just pretending to be a layman from the comfort of his armchair?

    "Well, I'm no layman, but even I can tell. . ."

    1. Re:armchair layman. . . by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      Well, saying that someone's a layman means that they're not in the clergy, so I'd assume that these are also religious nuts.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  62. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    you've grown beyond the mysticism answers.

    Or maybe he was just too selfish, impatient and materialistic to stick with the programme.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  63. can I play this game? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    "You were right to take the bicycle, the clothes probably wouldn't have fit you".

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  64. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    That's a play on an old joke, which I will probably mangle because it's been a long time since I heard or relayed it.

    A guy is drinking in a bar, and in front of him sits a tiny piano and a tiny man playing it. The bartender says "wow, where did you get him from?"

    The guy replies, well, I found a bottle on the beach, and a genie came out and granted me a wish for freeing him. Unfortunately, he was hard of hearing and misunderstood me."

    "What did you wish for?"

    "A twelve inch penis."

  65. speaking of bullshit and urban ledgends... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    my mind is vibrating at 7Hz

    Isn't that the resonant frequency of a chicken's skull ?
    no inference intended about parent AC, but hey, make what you want with it

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  66. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by JWSmythe · · Score: 2

        When I see a real guru fly in a way unexplainable by technology, magic carpet or otherwise, I'll agree with you. There are plenty of people who have dedicated their lives to such pursuits. Most of them say that they aren't worthy, therefore were not able to accomplish it, or they'll tell you that it happened.

        I've been around quite a bit, and I have yet to see anyone floating without a technological method to accomplish it. And no, saying "it doesn't work because you don't believe" doesn't hold water. I am open minded. I would love the opportunity to observe all the factors related to such an action. Just like a stage magician, any such performance is well controlled, if not a completely fabricated tale.

        I'll leave it up to you to prove me wrong. And no, online videos don't cut it. I've watched Superman withstand being shot, blown up, vehicles being thrown at him, and turning back time by countering the rotation of the Earth. I've watched Bruce Willis blow up an asteroid. I've seen the dead walk, the vampires fly, werewolves morph. I've seen countless alien invasions devastate the Earth. I've even seen the stones of Stonehenge move and control the annihilation of the earth (BTW, don't bother watch "Stonehenge Armageddon"). On more simplistic methods, I've seen "proof" of "ghosts" through tricks of the camera (many YouTube videos) and less convincing methods (the numerous Ghost Hunter shows, which are purely theatrical presentations with no special effects).

        Any and every "impossible" feat has a rational explanation. Well, unless you give in to the idea that you must have faith. Faith works well for con men and cults. It has no place in rational society.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  67. Witches I tell you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the dark ages when something could not be rationally explained, it was attributed to sorcery. In the middle ages, it was attributed to witches. Now, if something can't be explained, it's quantum mechanics and string theory, both of which especially the latter are close to being thrown out. This is almost like the church asking catholics to just believe.

  68. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by mcgrew · · Score: 2

    I do meditate (not daily), but I don't believe in any of the supernatural benefits either. I was prescribed yoga lessons by a physician for spinal arthritis about thirty five years ago, and it was the only prescription I ever got that was better than over the counter analgesics. But it isn't magic. Yoga is about relaxing, stretching, breathing. Nothing supernatural about its effects on arthritis.

    As to levitating and that other nonsense, I can't figure out how people can possibly believe any of it. Although I can see how yoga or non-yoga meditation might be beneficial for some mental illnesses, and perhaps even some physical ailments. Yoga does in fact work on arthritis, although simple meditation doesn't.

  69. No, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They claimed their controls had an effect on EMS transmission; they didn't say whether those control reactions had any effect on whether DNA was found in tube 2, or if they even checked for DNA in their control reactions, or if they checked for non-target DNA in ANY of their reactions. It was contamination, like the biologist says.

    At any rate - why was PCR one of the biggest technological advances (and one of the biggest series of patent lawsuits) in the life sciences if all we need to copy DNA is a doorbell chime? Let's get Montagnier and Mullis (nobel laureate inventer of PCR, also pretty wacky) on a stage to fight this out.

  70. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by geekoid · · Score: 1

    no, he spelled it correctly, It was a reference to a very old, and very funny joke.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  71. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Magic is not mystisim, it's technology, math and science presented in unique and hopefully entertaining ways.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  72. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by geekoid · · Score: 1

    haha, except some people actually believe they are performing things outside natural laws, seen when they are repeatedly told otherwise.

    Penn Jillette as talked about it several times.

    This is why I am on the magician should always admit it's a trick, and never hold the pretense beyond the stage.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  73. The set up reads like by geekoid · · Score: 1

    someone who doesn't really understand electronics.

    NO a very good paper at all, and he doesn't have any good controls for the equipment.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  74. profit publicity motive by journal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the old saying that any publicity is good publicity is, i think, borne out by modern psychological studies; even negative news can be good publicity

  75. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that a piano in your pants, or are you just happy to see me?

  76. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by geekoid · · Score: 1

    That's a horrible punchline. at no point should anywhere in that joke should penis be mentioned, it's implied.

    Short version*--

    A man walks into a bar. On the bar the is a foot tall man playing a tine piano.

    The man asks the bartender: "Where did you get him?"
    The bartender says: "I found a broken magic lamp."

    "Broken? what do you mean?"

    "Do you really think I wished for a 12 inch pianist?"

    *The long version builds a lot me suspence and misdirection.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  77. if you think it's "quantum teleportation"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you don't know what quantum teleportation is.

  78. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    None of this has anything to do with what TM claims, which is that anyone sufficiently enlightened can close their eyes and meditate, and through that act alone, levitate.

    They're not claiming they can fool you into thinking the person levitated -- and after all, believing something doesn't make it so.

    They're not claiming people once floated, mythologically, because they were so enlightened. Or they are claiming that, but I'm not disputing that these myths exist. I'm disputing that the events they describe actually happened.

    But the claim they're making is that the only technology you need to levitate is to be sufficiently enlightened, and then you can fly unaided.

    In reality, what they do is close their eyes, sit cross-legged (lotus position, actually), and hop around on their asses, claiming this is the first stage of three stages, where stage 2 will be actual levitation, and stage 3 will be Superman.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  79. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    Or too skeptical, inquisitive, and logical.

    Here's the problem: I wanted to believe what The Movement was telling me. But when it came right down to it, there were absurdities in their metaphysics and very few real answers when I actually had a real question.

    For example, if Yogic Flying is actually flight of any sort other than hopping around on your ass, why not measure it? Why not, say, put pressure plates under a yogic flier and do some calculations to see if there's any component to it other than them exerting a muscular force on the ground in order to hop?

    Or if people can actually fly like Superman, where are all the people flying like Superman? I haven't seen one. You'd think if Maharishi's goal was to make the whole world enlightened, a trivial way to get a giant head-start would be to start flying. How many people would've tried TM if he actually did fly? (Never mind the trivial grab of James Randi's million dollar prize.) I mean, he only needs one percent of the population meditating, supposedly -- that's, what, 70 million people? Surely a single act of flying could convince 70 million people to start meditating.

    Or let's try the square root of one percent doing the Sidhis. That's under ten thousand people. Fly in front of the President, the Joint Chiefs, even a few high-level officers, and you'll easily get that many soldiers ordered to do it.

    Yet so far, I see nothing about the Movement which isn't equally well explained -- better, in fact -- as an interesting and mostly harmless cult which is only really still alive because of a few very wealthy contributors (David Lynch, etc). About the only thing that separates this from Scientology is the "mostly harmless" part.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  80. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

    Well, that's what I was trying to describe.

        The simplest definition of mysticism is "belief in the mystery", or a leap of faith to believe what is shown, rather than wanting to learn the truth.

        Magic is mysticism for the audience. They see someone hover, a girl cut in half, or disappear from a sealed box, to the audience it was a mystery. To you or I, we try to get a glimpse of how the illusion was created. Depending on the skill and method of the artist, we may never get a hint of how it was done.

        If we were allowed to know the technology behind it, many people would be disappointed to know that the magic was just technology. Others, like you and I, would appreciate how they did it.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  81. New Scientist by montjoy0 · · Score: 1

    While I enjoy the magazine, it's commonly "out there". It's like the Popular Mechanics of science magazines - lots of cool stuff that probably won't ever happen/exist.

  82. pcr is not absolute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All you have to do is run PCR in the absence of a target to invalidate the experiment. Although the amplification if target is hugely preferential, spontaneous noise also occurs. This is why you run controls to eliminate the noise. It is not surprising that there would be something that resembled a 100 Dalton example at all. It happens all the time. Ratios are king in anything related to the tools of molecular biology- not absolute values. This is a big reason why there are so many 15-minutes of fame handed out to one hit wonders in the field of molecular biology that later turn out to be retractions.

  83. keep thinking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can grow a big crystal, by taking a small piece of another crystal and placing it
    into the same conditions as the first one .. it will grow.
    for DNA, the conditions seem to be: water, 7 Hz and then some?

  84. Remote sex by LukeWebber · · Score: 1

    I'm gettin' with Natalie Portman right now.

  85. main author a crackpot? by afm47 · · Score: 1

    Half the references are to papers coauthored by E del Giudice, himself a coauthor of the paper. Here is one of his works: http://www.isi.it/progetti/workshop-complexity09/pres_DelGiudice.pdf, looks very much like the work of a crackpot. An he often is a coauthor of M Fleischmann of cold fusion fame. Also I do have some training in QED, but what those guys are writing looks like junk to me, and particular it looks much different to typical QED computations. Heaps of fancy words without meaning in between. How they got Montagnier to coauthor the paper escapes me.

  86. Cold Fusion connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the co-authors (Del Giudice) has published cold fusion papers in the past.
    In fact, ref 19 in TFA includes the infamous Martin Fleischmann as a co-author of Del Giudice.
    Hardly a good track record of reliable, reproducible, and serious science.

  87. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by The+Mighty+Buzzard · · Score: 1

    Eh, whatever blows your skirt up. Just don't go thinking correlation == causation.

    --
    Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
  88. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

    Hard to stick up a liquor store and meditate at the same.

    Speaks the voice of experience ?

    Did the liquor store have a video camera recording when you tried this ... unusual ... stick up? That would make for an interesting, not to say amusing, video.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  89. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

    Where am I thinking that?

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  90. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by benthurston27 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a cheap pussy?

  91. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

    ....If we can only drag a few billion other people past the threshold, humanity would be in good shape.

    A few billion people can probably be dragged, but they will be dead eventually. You'll have to keep dragging a few billion people all the time.
    Like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar or Nithyananda, I'd rather prefer selling snake oil and mysticism.

  92. Not really sure what the problem is here. by Geminii · · Score: 1

    Get a bunch of labs to try and replicate the experiment. Having an opinion before then is pretty silly. Either the experimenters stumbled onto something (regardless of their armwaving attempts to explain it) or they screwed up the experiment. Until it's been replicated (or failed to be) in multiple reputable labs, there's not much point in saying either "OMG what if it's right?!?!" or "Well OBVIOUSLY it must be wrong."

    It's supposed to be frickin' SCIENCE. Just do the damn replicability experiments, publish the data, and only then start speculating wildly.

  93. Far out, maaaan by nonsciencepoet · · Score: 1

    If you read the original paper in a Terence McKenna voice, it sounds really cool.

  94. Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you by clickety6 · · Score: 1

    or a tight one! ;)

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  95. This isn't new news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DNA existing in electromagnetic form was preposed a long time ago by Thomas Bearden. I've argued against evolutionists that an alternative theory is better and that the DNA coding for every living thing that was or every will be already exists in the the 4 space field. How exactly it goes from that form to living creatures I don't know.

  96. well , what about ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about the soul and what about the memories ?
    if soul and memories are ok then could it be used to cure the entire body in the process ?

  97. Save Your Judgement for Later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give the guy a half chance. Most of you people live in a box that was design by elusive facts and propaganda. The truth has yet to be revealed. There are many things that will defy physics and many of the laws (theory) of relativity, thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. We are an ignorant race who has just opened the book of science and are beginning to learn. Many of the scientific truths are withheld from us by the elite. The world would be a very different, and better place, if control was removed from the hands of a few (elitists). So stop thinking in the box. Stop accepting the paradigm. Trust your intuition. And listen and learn.