Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
that a very poor description of how spectral analysis works. there are three kinds of spectra: continuous, emission, and absorption. astronomers study the photosphere of the sun using absorption spectra. an absorption spectrum is produced when light emitted by hot, dense material passes through a cooler, less dense medium before being broken up by a prism. when it passes through the cooler medium, some wavelengths of the light are 'absorbed' by atoms the medium; these wavelengths will be 'missing' from the spectrum produced by the prism. which wavelengths are absorbed depends only on the chemical composition of the medium.
in other words, astronomers are interested in the missing wavelengths, not the continuous spectrum of colors.
Although you can't put the planets or stars physically in the lab you can carry out experiments on them. Most experiments are observations carried out in a controlled way.
Take this example (which I have some part experience with from my school and university days)
1. "Burn" samples of different known elements or compounds. Observe the spectra of the light given off by each (the strength of the light given off at different wave lengths, this can be visible and non visible spectrum). This gives a fingerprint for light emitted by each element (based on certain absorption and emission lines at certain wave lengths). Actually this fingerprint can now be determined theoretically by quantum mechanics!
2. Burn an unknown substance and analyse the spectrum of the light and use the known light fingerprints to determine the composition of the substance.
3. You can double check the results of 2 by using other chemical methods to analyse the compound - this confirms or disproves the veracity of method 2
4. You can detect and analyse the spectrum of light from a star using a powerful telescope and use method 2 to determine the composition of the star. It's true that as not in a lab, 4 needs greater thought. For example the star moving in relation to the earth and light travelling through the atmosphere can effect results so you need to also understand how that effect influences what you see. This can be checked by other experiments.
SPECTRUM ANALYSIS
is relied upon as proving this. A prism is placed in position
so as to intercept the sun's rays, and the colours seen through
this instrument, red, orange, yellow, blue, are said to be the
result of the various metals contained in the sun in a state of
fusion, emitting their several colours in the combined sun-
light, which total light is decomposed into its component
colours by the prism.
With the object of testing the conclusions arrived at by
the learned relative to spectrum analysis, several experiments
were made by the writer. The light of the sun on a clear
day, about noon, seen through the prism disclosed the various
colours that can be seen through this instrument. On a hazy
day before sunset the colours seen were the same but very
faint. Light from a lighthouse and a star seen through the
prism, showed the colours to be the same, the colour from
the light of the star being much less brilliant than that from
the lighthouse. Light from a parafine street lamp gave the
same result as light from a star or the sun, only much fainter.
Then the electric light was tried. A large street lamp of
great power and several others of less power gave the same
result as the sun, star, lighthouse, and street lamp, but in
various degrees of brilliancy according to the power of the
light. Even a candle gave a very faint yellow-blue tinge, so
slight that it had to be looked at for some time before any-
thing but blue was apparent.
If, therefore, it be argued that spectrum analysis proves
that the sun is made of the same metals as we find in the
earth, and that, therefore, the earth is a product of evolution
then it is equally clear that the electric light and the glass
shade of the lamp which encases it are really composed of
iron and various other metals in a state of fusion, constituting
indeed, a globe of glowing vapour, and not glass, carbon,
etc, at all. It is also as reasonable to conclude that the
paraffine lamp and the candle are composed of metals in a
state of fusion and that there is in reality no paraffine, no
glass, no tallow, and no wick. That is to say, known facts be
thrown aside, common sense stultified, and reason
dethroned in order to bolster up the unprovable assumptions
of modern science relative to the doctrine of evolution
as applied to the earth and the heavenly bodies.
I don't think I said that observation was the only thing astronomers did, just that the observation was a big part.
During the 20th century, the field of professional astronomy split into observational and theoretical branches. Observational astronomy is focused on acquiring data from observations of astronomical objects, which is then analyzed using basic principles of physics. Theoretical astronomy is oriented toward the development of computer or analytical models to describe astronomical objects and phenomena. The two fields complement each other, with theoretical astronomy seeking to explain the observational results and observations being used to confirm theoretical results.
From the above diagram you can see how many scientific processes work. In astronomy the large part of the work is observation and documenting those observations.
Quote from: moon squirterthen made a load of excuses for how the sun and moon etc etc work.
Rowbotham's explanations for the sun and moon are based on direct empirical observation. Rowbotham does not guess at what he cannot observe. For example, Rowotham freely admits that he cannot guess at what causes the sun to move in its particular North-South patterns throughout the year because to guess without evidence - to hypothesize - is against the Zetetic Philosophy. Empirical evidence is required for all explanations
Quote from: squevilTB the book is all opinion after chapter 2 not fact :/ but when you believe something strongly you see what you want to see
Rowbotham presents two kinds of evidence in Earth Not a Globe. He presents experimental evidence and he presents empirical evidence. His water-convexity tests are experimental in nature while the rest of his work beyond Chapter 2 is empirical in nature.
For example; Rowbotham notes that deep coal mines tend to get hotter with depth. The deepest mines in Britain have steam pouring out of them constantly; as it gets hot enough for the air to condense. It is not possible to go into the mines without heavy protective gear and masks.
From this Rowbotham concludes, empirically, that the earth gets hotter with depth, as the weight of the earth causes compression and heat. Rowbotham further concludes that at some deeper depth the compression must be so great that rock liquefies; into a substance akin to the fiery magma which has been seen to erupt from volcanoes. Hence, the earth must be riding atop a great ocean of liquid magma, and there must be great quantities of liquid rock beneath us; an unprecedented notion for Rowbotham's time.
Quote from: squevilthis is what i wanted to discuss before with youi found the first champter very intresting but he makes many presumtions after that.
Rowbotham backs up his conclusions about the workings of the world with empirical evidence, not mere presumption.
Quote from: turtlesHuh, what has modern science ever done for us? Apart from the aqueduct. And sanitation. And the roads. And irrigation... medicine... education... polio vaccinations... lasers... microchips... aircraft... the internet... funny how all that stuff works flawlessly... except when it proves the Earth is a sphere and then suddenly "nooo, thats a NASA microchip <hushed voice>you can't trust it...</hushed voice>".
Some of those things may have been developed using Zetetic methodology without the person aware that they were using it.
The Scientific Method says that one must hypothesize first and then create an experiment around that hypothesis.
The Zetetic Method says that one must experiment first, letting the results speak for themselves.
Medical chemists certainly use the Zetetic Method for creating drugs. See the Folding at Home project. The project goes through a rapid series of different configurations to see what works and what does not.
Experiment first, conclude after. That's how the truth is found.
When you hypothesize first and create an experiment around that hypothesis your experiment is fallacious because you are deliberately proving whatever you are trying to prove. Finding the absolute truth of the matter has nothing to do with the Scientific Method. With the Scientific Method you are attempting to prove your idea true.
Several population studies show an association between increased intake of garlic and reduced risk of certain cancers, including cancers of the stomach, colon, esophagus, pancreas, and breast. Population studies are multidisciplinary studies of population groups that investigate the cause, incidence, or spread of a disease or examine the effect of health-related interventions, dietary and nutritional intakes, or environmental exposures. An analysis of data from seven population studies showed that the higher the amount of raw and cooked garlic consumed, the lower the risk of stomach and colorectal cancer (5).
The results of a small, nonrandomized study indicate that the application of garlic extracts to some skin tumors may be beneficial. In the study, which involved 21 persons with basal cell carcinoma, the application of ajoene (a sulfurous chemical found in garlic) to the skin for 1 month markedly decreased the size of 17 tumors, increased tumor size in 3 patients, and resulted in no change in 1 other patient (16). Changes in tumor size ranged from an 88 percent reduction to a 69 percent increase, with an overall median reduction of 47 percent.
Tom, all these studies show that garlic MIGHT reduce the risk of cancer, or slow cancer growth, or maybe even kill cancer cells under certain conditions. Many of the studies were only done on MICE, not humans. Also, most of the articles you provided don't even source the studies they are talking about. Here is an article that actually provides sources for the studies it references: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/garlic-fact-sheet.
Remember, you are claiming that curing cancer is trivial with garlic and peppers. None of these studies even come close to supporting your claim.
Tom you pushed a lot of "correlation equals causation" narratives in the last 2 pages. It doesn't hold together because it doesn't show that carrots/prayer/Chinese medicine could be the only cause of the change in people's condition.
The placebo effect and morale are well known to be effective but that is about patient belief in health and well-being and nothing to do with garlic/carrots/bullshit medicine.
In Dr. Earl Mindell’s Garlic: The Miracle Nutrient, a 1957 study in the journal Science reported that researchers incubated sarcoma tumor cells with the garlic compound Allinase and S-ethyl-L-cysteine sulfoxide, then injected the tumor cells into mice. Tumor growth was completely inhibited and the mice survived beyond the sixth month observation period according to researchers. Mice injected with the tumor cells only (without the garlic compound), survived only 2 months.
The good news is research into garlic against cancer has shown positive results. In laboratory tests with mice, garlic stabilized and actually shrunk tumors. In mice injected with garlic extracts, tumor growth decreased by 30-50%. In mice that were given dietary garlic, the growths decreased by 10-25%.
One study, at the Mercy Cancer Institute in Pittsburgh, shows that garlic can help slow the growth of tumors.
"We have shown that some of these compounds prevent cancer in animals, and we hope that's the case in humans," said Shivendra Singh of the institute.
"We know how these garlic compounds are inhibiting cancer, but whether or not they have some kind of specificity for certain types of tumors, that remains to be seen," he said.
Other studies, some of them at West Virginia University, have found that garlic can inhibit the growth of breast cancer.
Also, says Dr. Donald Lamm of West Virginia University, "garlic very significantly reduced the growth of bladder tumors in mice."
Researchers at the university think garlic may help boost the immune system in laboratory mice, thereby reducing the growth of cancerous cells.
Search her name, sometimes it is easy to find the information sometimes it is not. This time it was easy. Just add "death" after her name. I would also try that every time you see someone saying they have refused treatment. Not the ones after they claim they cured their cancer.
Self-reported testimonials are subject to selection bias, and are almost useless for identifying a causative link among multiple variables. It has nothing to do with the honesty of the people reporting the results. It simply isn't possible to separate out all the confounding variables with such a small sample size, for something as complicated as cancer.
Screw phase 4 trials. How about at least phase 2? Or even phase 1?
Before you can claim that garlic cures cancer, you should be able to answer most of these questions:
1. How many people have been cured by garlic?
2. How many have tried to use garlic as a cure, and failed?
3. What is the breakdown by dosage?
4. What is the breakdown by cancer type and stage?
5. Based on these results, how effective is garlic compared to other treatment options (chemo, radiation, etc.)?
a simple google search shows that there has been a lot of research showing that prayer alone kills cancer:
http://www1.cbn.com/700club/wayne-higgins-cry-cured-cancer
https://www.tgm.org/HealedFromCancerPM.html
http://mswm.org/miracles.alook.htm
http://mswm.org/miracle_healing_testimony_andrewkakepetum.htm
https://www.hopefaithprayer.com/books/Healed%20of%20Cancer%20-%20Osteen.pdf
http://www.alanames.org/en/testimonies.htm
http://healingandrevival.com/testimonies/?p=367
when people detail how they cured their stage 4 cancer with "prayer, nothing else" that is pretty good evidence that prayer cures cancer. if you are claiming that this story and the many stories like it are untrue, you must be delusional. there is really no other explanation for how they survived, unless you choose to accuse all of these people as being liars.
It is also not unusual for people to experience spontaneous remissions from cancer and other diseases simply because they have had a profound change in their beliefs or outlook on life.
studies during the 1980s and early 1990s revealed that the brain is directly wired to the immune system — portions of the nervous system connect with immune-related organs such as the thymus and bone marrow, and immune cells have receptors for neurotransmitters, suggesting that there is crosstalk.
This one died from cancer:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3173212/Newlywed-shuns-chemotherapy-CARROTS-vows-beat-cancer-alternative-therapies-trying-baby-doctors-warn-s-no-evidence-work.html
Is that evidence it does not work?
Are you going to ignore the person in the first link diagnosed himself with stage 4 cancer? Not only that he used a method that would not detect the type of cancer he claims to have had.
So is it your belief all doctors and researchers involved with researching a cure are evil and hiding the truth?
The problem with that logic is you are able to find stuff supporting garlic can reduce growth or kill cancer from those people. They did not sweep it under the rug trying to hide it from the masses. That is why you can find the results and conclusions using an internet search.
So... your proof that garlic cures cancer is "a whole lot of people claim that cancer can be cured with plants like garlic?" Gee golly, you sure have convinced me. Your argument is airtight!
There are people who claim to have been cured by garlic, and there are people who have claimed to have been cured by peppers. Those testimonials are evidence that cancer is treatable by these things.
Sure, but it's extremely weak, self-reported, anecdotal evidence. People claim all sorts of stuff cured their cancer. I just googled the first 6 foods that popped into my head: carrots, lettuce, broccoli, coffee, chocolate, peanuts. Every single one had multiple websites that claimed they cure/prevent/fight cancer.
Self-reported cures are extremely susceptible to all sorts of bias and errors.
So... your proof that garlic cures cancer is "a whole lot of people claim that cancer can be cured with plants like garlic?" Gee golly, you sure have convinced me. Your argument is airtight!
if some prayer will kill cancer, then lots of prayer will cure cancer. it's not really such a difficult leap. you might as well tell me it's only possible to get a little wet from my refrigerator's water dispenser.
there are a lot of people who claim that various psalms and prayers cured their cancer.
Hart's oncologist, Tammy Young, told the Town Talk, that while she certainly believed the Tarceva was effective in curing his cancer, prayer definitely played a role in the outcome.
"He has a lung cancer that has a mutation that is very responsive to Tarceva," Young said. "He began taking Tarceva and took it for a few months and had a very good response from the treatment…"Most patients don't have as spectacular a response as Hal has had. And, absolutely, the power of prayer is an important part of this picture."