This tosses your Dogmatic views out the window.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olve8kwBKIw Last time i checked.. Numbers dont usually lie....
Are you serious? "You're" connotates "You Are" which is not correct for the context of that sentence.. "Your" connotates posession... as in "whats mine is YOURS" so.. In fact.. When I am talking about YOUR dogmatic views.. YOUR would be the grammatically correct spelling. Unification theory states that ALL THINGS ARE CONNECTED BY ENERGY.. therefore.. Crystals are connected to plants by energy.. and all energry can be transmuted from positive to negative. I believe you sir are the douche that has failed to even read any of the information I have posted.. let alone research it. Math doesnt lie bud... Scientists DO!Why do you feel the need to be such a douche while not proving that crystals benefit plants?
When you are telling someone they are not smart, you should spell the word "you're" correctly.
lol numbers are numbers, how they are interpreted however is a much different matterThis tosses your Dogmatic views out the window.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olve8kwBKIw Last time i checked.. Numbers dont usually lie....
When math adds up.. its true math.. This math adds up.. relativistic physics does not.. I fail to see you point in this...lol numbers are numbers, how they are interpreted however is a much different matter
and youtube videos certain can be full of lies
but its cute your think its proof of anything
LOL a man on youtube has thrown a bunch of numbers at you and told you what they're supposed to meanWhen math adds up.. its true math.. This math adds up.. relativistic physics does not.. I fail to see you point in this...
and what? he did a couple of sums and has done nothing apart from that to back it up?That man calculated the size and volume of the universe, and then cross referenced it with the size and volume of a proton and found the same value.. he then reversed his caluclations to check his math and found the same result. If you can find flaws in his calculation be my guest.. I have not found them.. and I am most certain I have done more research on this than you have. Your opinion is dogmatic and holds no substance.. This formula is EXACT and can be back referenced for accuracy to a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a percent.. I think Im going to believe the math.. not some guy who's still stuck on 3rd grade physics.. Try actually learning something instead of making assumptions all the time.. you might be surprised what you learn!
no insulting pleaseOH... and by the way.. Stephen Hawking agrees with me... Last time I checked.. he was a little bit smarter than you!
If you would do a little research you could find that out for yourself! But oh wait... You would rather make assumptions based on your dogmatic views instead of actually learn something new... I forgot.. My bad... Im sorry but its not my job to render the hundreds of hours of research I alone have done on the subject.. I have shown you the facts.. if you would like to see where they come from.. I have also given you every avenue to check that out.. Im not on salary bud.. Im just trying to help you learn something.. Its up to you if you want to follow through and actually learn something new!and what? he did a couple of sums and has done nothing apart from that to back it up?
no predictions?
no experiments?
nothing at all just a youtube vid and a gaggle of gullible idiots who lap it up without question?
well thats me sold
dude what did i just say? relax man if you cannot act civil dont typeIf you would do a little research you could find that out for yourself! But oh wait... You would rather make assumptions based on your dogmatic views instead of actually learn something new... I forgot.. My bad...
lol you think that as you've just now found out about this guy that no one else has heard it before? that your the first to start spreading the nonsense that is crystal energy?If you would do a little research you could find that out for yourself! But oh wait... You would rather make assumptions based on your dogmatic views instead of actually learn something new... I forgot.. My bad... Im sorry but its not my job to render the hundreds of hours of research I alone have done on the subject.. I have shown you the facts.. if you would like to see where they come from.. I have also given you every avenue to check that out.. Im not on salary bud.. Im just trying to help you learn something.. Its up to you if you want to follow through and actually learn something new!
So pulling 3lb per 1000W HPS on a consistant basis is just "luck".. well then I guess Im pretty lucky eh.. Ive been pulling 3lb per light for close to 15 years now consistantly.. Something tells me luck doesnt have much to do with itHocus pocus rocks? No... pH shocking the shit out of them and potentially getting lucky you didn't wipe out your crop? More(most) likely..
From Lawrence Livermore National Labs.. I cite:
"A single-pass, flow-through apparatus was used to determine the dissolution rate of quartz at 70°C as a function of pH and time. Dissolution rate data were obtained over the pH range 1.4 to 11.8 in nine separate experiments each lasting 50 days. The quartz dissolution rates were defined by the silica release rate to solution. Speciation-solubility calculations using the geochemical modeling code EQ3/6 indicate that the fluid was maintained far from equilibrium with respect to quartz and well-undersaturated with respect to all possible secondary minerals in all runs. The dissolution rates were independent of pH at values (10[SUP]−15.3[/SUP] mol/cm[SUP]2[/SUP] · s) consistent with the data of Rimstidt and Barnes (1980) up to approximately pH 6, but at higher pH the rates increased with increasing pH, proportional toView attachment 2497819, being almost four orders of magnitude higher at pH 11.8. The rate constants for quartz dissolution at 70°C were 10[SUP]−15.3[/SUP] mol/cm[SUP]2[/SUP] · s in the pH-independent region extending from acid through neutral solutions, and 10[SUP]−17.8[/SUP] mol/cm[SUP]2[/SUP] · s in more alkaline solutions. Etch pits were strongly developed in the runs with the more alkaline solutions (pH > 8 ), in which the rates were the highest. This appears consistent with a surface reaction-controlled dissolution mechanism."
...
This also assumes that the quartz is superheated to 70C, but fact remains.. if it in a liquid form can run a 1.4 to 11.8 range.. why can't it be worn off the very same stones/rocks/hocus pocus magical things with normal liquids? Maybe this is a hint that we need to buy diamonds for the females... afterall, diamonds are a girls best friend.. ?
Fi-
Edit: Something in the above text did not agree with the security settings for the forums, first time I tried to submit it... I got this msg:
What happened?
The security system for this website has been triggered because of a phrase or content in your submission. If you are reading this, you are most likely a human visitor trying to log in or post a comment that triggered the system.
Any idea what word(s) or combination used in either my word choices or citing that could have triggered it? If so, will do my best to dodge those so I don't have to play with the anti-bot screen. In retrospect, was probably the clickable link embedded... blah.
Dogma is belief without factual evidence.. If you believe in relativity.. you believe in a dogmatic veiw as there is NO PROOF that it factually exists. If you actually look at the way Relativistc physics are experimented with.. all of the laws are based on the function of a substance within an ISOLATED SYSTEM. By definition.. an Isolated System is a system that is completly cut off from the rest of the universe and can not... or does not interact with its physical surroundings.. This definition also states that Isolated Systems are NOT FOUND ANYWHERE IN NATURE?!?!?!?!? So.. in a nutshell.. this basically means that ALL of the natural laws that have been developed by relativistic physics are NOT based on something that NATURALLY occurs in nature?!?! Do you not see a fundamental flaw in this approach? How can we judge how an object interacts with its natural environment.. when we are doing experiments in an environment that doesnt occur naturally? It just doesnt make sense.. just like all of the arguements I have heard rebuting this theory. Im just looking for some proof.. Not some smart ass comment saying "haha your a retard if you believe in this".. cause you know.. so much progress is made with that kind of thing..........lol you think that as you've just now found out about this guy that no one else has heard it before? that your the first to start spreading the nonsense that is crystal energy?
hundreds of hours of research? lol well lets put it this way not all research if done equally especially if your prone to believing stupid shit like you seem to be
your not new or original and shout that we're dogmatic doesnt make what your saying any more real