Hidden Messages in Water
I got an email from Enio asking me: I would like to know your opinion about Masaru Emoto's "Crystal Water Photos".First, some background. Masaru Emoto's book The Hidden Messages in Water is currently #66 in sales rank on Amazon. That means A LOT of people are buying it. Here's the blurb from the cover that pretty much explains what Masaru Emoto and his crystal water photos are all about:
The Hidden Messages in Water is an eye-opening theory showing how water is deeply connected to people's individual and collective consciousness. Drawing from his own research, scientific researcher, healer, and popular lecturer Dr. Masaru Emoto describes the ability of water to absorb, hold, and even retransmit human feelings and emotions. Using high-speed photography, he found that crystals formed in frozen water reveal changes when specific, concentrated thoughts are directed toward it. Music, visual images, words written on paper, and photographs also have an impact on the crystal structure. Emoto theorizes that since water has the ability to receive a wide range of frequencies, it can also reflect the universe in this manner. He found that water from clear springs and water exposed to loving words shows brilliant, complex, and colorful snowflake patterns, while polluted water and water exposed to negative thoughts forms incomplete, asymmetrical patterns with dull colors. Emoto believes that since people are 70 percent water, and the Earth is 70 percent water, we can heal our planet and ourselves by consciously expressing love and goodwill.
What do I think of this theory? Well, at the risk of giving off a lot of negative energy that's going to make a whole bunch of water crystals get all bent out of shape, I think it's complete baloney. But then, I'm not very 'open minded' about things like this. So I would think that.
(but I have to add: since when has the earth been 70 percent water? Do they mean the surface of the earth? That might make sense. But the earth itself ain't 70 percent water)
Posted By: Alex | Date: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | Permalink |
Total Comments: 109
Category: Photos/Videos, Science
Category: Photos/Videos, Science
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 2 of 6 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »
Thats gross
Posted by X on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 08:41 AM
Here's some more about "Talking Water." Jesus, people are stupid!
http://www.mybiopro.com/VoicesInHarmonyEvent.aspx?ID=awengrove
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 03:37 PM
http://www.mybiopro.com/VoicesInHarmonyEvent.aspx?ID=awengrove
i didn't expect the spanish inquisition.
Posted by flordo bofkonkuldin on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:23 PM
"I didn't expect the spanish inquisition." Noone does...
Posted by Hairy Houdini on Tue Apr 12, 2005 at 08:41 PM
The comments about this book are more hooey than the book itself. The pictures are there for you to see. (Have any of you actually looked at it)?
There was not one thoughtful factual rebuttal in all the comments I read, just repitition of predetermined beliefs. This site promotes a sad commentary on intelligent criticism...
Posted by Kyger in Washington on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 12:55 PM
There was not one thoughtful factual rebuttal in all the comments I read, just repitition of predetermined beliefs. This site promotes a sad commentary on intelligent criticism...
Kyger said:
"The comments about this book are more hooey than the book itself. The pictures are there for you to see. (Have any of you actually looked at it)?"
I'm sorry, how do PICTURES prove that water can respond to emotions or do anything other than be wet? Please explain.
"There was not one thoughtful factual rebuttal in all the comments I read, just repitition of predetermined beliefs. This site promotes a sad commentary on intelligent criticism..."
Those "predetermined beliefs" are called SCIENCE. We believe in it/them because they are the best system by which humans can understand the world around us that anyone has yet devised. If you have a better one, please tell us about it so that mankind can benefit.
You DO understand, don't you, that WE don't have to prove anything? It's up to the author or a supporter of the author's premise to demonstrate that the theory of "intelligent water" or whatever it's called is anything other than bizarre irrational nonsense.
If you can prove that water can indeed respond to emotions under controlled conditions, the James Randi Educational Foundation has a million-dollar prize waiting for you. I direct you to their site, randi.org, for the details. Good luck.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Thu Apr 21, 2005 at 11:18 PM
"The comments about this book are more hooey than the book itself. The pictures are there for you to see. (Have any of you actually looked at it)?"
I'm sorry, how do PICTURES prove that water can respond to emotions or do anything other than be wet? Please explain.
"There was not one thoughtful factual rebuttal in all the comments I read, just repitition of predetermined beliefs. This site promotes a sad commentary on intelligent criticism..."
Those "predetermined beliefs" are called SCIENCE. We believe in it/them because they are the best system by which humans can understand the world around us that anyone has yet devised. If you have a better one, please tell us about it so that mankind can benefit.
You DO understand, don't you, that WE don't have to prove anything? It's up to the author or a supporter of the author's premise to demonstrate that the theory of "intelligent water" or whatever it's called is anything other than bizarre irrational nonsense.
If you can prove that water can indeed respond to emotions under controlled conditions, the James Randi Educational Foundation has a million-dollar prize waiting for you. I direct you to their site, randi.org, for the details. Good luck.
Would you believe it if I told you ministers were preaching from the pulpit that Mr. Emoto's work is proven science and that we can purify water with our minds?
I am totally serious. http://www.randi.org/jr/052005la.html#4
I have talked with two ministers at the Church of Religious Science about preaching pseudo-science and I am told that the truth is "my reality"?
One of the ministers was my own minister at my RS church I attended for 17 years. Unbelievable.
Can anyone say: Galileo?
Posted by Conrad Askland in Southern California on Mon May 23, 2005 at 06:11 PM
I am totally serious. http://www.randi.org/jr/052005la.html#4
I have talked with two ministers at the Church of Religious Science about preaching pseudo-science and I am told that the truth is "my reality"?
One of the ministers was my own minister at my RS church I attended for 17 years. Unbelievable.
Can anyone say: Galileo?
Conrad Askland said:
"Would you believe it if I told you ministers were preaching from the pulpit that Mr. Emoto's work is proven science and that we can purify water with our minds?"
Yes, unfortunately, I WOULD believe it. There is no definable line between "religion" and "superstition." Those ministers are straddling any line anyone could point out. They're nuts.
"I have talked with two ministers at the Church of Religious Science about preaching pseudo-science and I am told that the truth is "my reality"?"
Yup, in the same sense that gravity is just "your reality." Tell these goofs to jump off a high building. After all, crashing to Earth is just "their reality."
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Tue May 24, 2005 at 01:44 AM
"Would you believe it if I told you ministers were preaching from the pulpit that Mr. Emoto's work is proven science and that we can purify water with our minds?"
Yes, unfortunately, I WOULD believe it. There is no definable line between "religion" and "superstition." Those ministers are straddling any line anyone could point out. They're nuts.
"I have talked with two ministers at the Church of Religious Science about preaching pseudo-science and I am told that the truth is "my reality"?"
Yup, in the same sense that gravity is just "your reality." Tell these goofs to jump off a high building. After all, crashing to Earth is just "their reality."
you know how he said that unpolluted water (pure?) creates colourful and beautiful crystals, and the polluted water creates dull, ugly crystals. well my theory is that the more pure the water the less non-water particles there are to a) muck up the ideal water crystal lattice and b) create different colours by not allowing the clear water particles to refract light as the pure water would. no pollutants = light refracting differently and hence there's not brilliant white or pretty rainbows shining through the crystal's structure. of course pure water is gpoing to bond better to itself thus creating perfect water crystals, if there's pollutants in there then they'll 'get in the way' how technical, but i bet i'm right.
Posted by Toodlepip in Australia on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:26 PM
woops, typo, i mean: pollutants = light refracting differently and hence there's not brilliant white or pretty rainbows shining through the crystal's structure
Posted by toodlepip in Australia on Tue Oct 25, 2005 at 06:29 PM
Let people believe whatever they want to believe. Because if it makes them happier, and live a better life, then so be it. Don't burst people's bubble.
Now if thoughts impact water crystallization formations or not, it is a significant claim. It should put to test by the scientific method, and taken seroiusly.
Because its not like anyone knows where matter and space came from anyway, at least not in this time in history.
My personal opinion I don't know if Dr. Emoto is speaking the truth. If he were, then if I were a god I will be laughing down at your ass thinking on how blantantly ignorant some people can be. Muahahaha
Posted by JasDub in Los Angeles on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 10:07 PM
Now if thoughts impact water crystallization formations or not, it is a significant claim. It should put to test by the scientific method, and taken seroiusly.
Because its not like anyone knows where matter and space came from anyway, at least not in this time in history.
My personal opinion I don't know if Dr. Emoto is speaking the truth. If he were, then if I were a god I will be laughing down at your ass thinking on how blantantly ignorant some people can be. Muahahaha
"woops, typo, i mean: pollutants = light refracting differently and hence there's not brilliant white or pretty rainbows shining through the crystal's structure"
Interesting. But that doesn't explain how thoughts or words can affect formation, considering that this Emoto is telling the truth. And does anyone know of other reputable people/schools that confirm his studies?
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by JasDub in Los Angeles on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 10:10 PM
Interesting. But that doesn't explain how thoughts or words can affect formation, considering that this Emoto is telling the truth. And does anyone know of other reputable people/schools that confirm his studies?
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
JasDub said:
"Let people believe whatever they want to believe. Because if it makes them happier, and live a better life, then so be it. Don't burst people's bubble."
Sorry, no can do. It's "magical thinking," I believe that, at least in part, led to the current war in Iraq. As in, "We're in line with what God wants so we cannot lose."
Irrational thinking can lead to death, especially when it's practiced by "leaders."
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Mon Dec 12, 2005 at 11:47 PM
"Let people believe whatever they want to believe. Because if it makes them happier, and live a better life, then so be it. Don't burst people's bubble."
Sorry, no can do. It's "magical thinking," I believe that, at least in part, led to the current war in Iraq. As in, "We're in line with what God wants so we cannot lose."
Irrational thinking can lead to death, especially when it's practiced by "leaders."
I agree, irrational thinking can lead to death. But first of all water formation do have crystals. If you read what I stated earlier, I said Emoto's claim needs to be proved by other scientists over and over again under tight provisions, before we can disregard his stuff as "magical thinking." Yes, his research is extreme and in "la la land," but he's providing his proof and its our turn to prove it otherwise or not. BTW, if anyone knows of independ studies that confirm this or not please email me or reply.
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Posted by JasDub on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 02:00 PM
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
You are entirely missing the whole point. He has not proved anything. His work has never been submitted for peer review. James Randi has offered Emoto the one million dollar paranormal prize just to prove what he says he's already doing.
It is NOT our obligation to disprove him, he has never proved it in the first place, but yet deceptively has presented it so it seems that it IS proven.
That is the problem with pseudoscience, it disguises itself as science, but it is not. You are falling prey to the deception and propogating pseudoscience with those comments.
Posted by Ernest in Seattle, Wa on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 02:22 PM
It is NOT our obligation to disprove him, he has never proved it in the first place, but yet deceptively has presented it so it seems that it IS proven.
That is the problem with pseudoscience, it disguises itself as science, but it is not. You are falling prey to the deception and propogating pseudoscience with those comments.
JasDub said:
"Yes, his research is extreme and in "la la land," but he's providing his proof and its our turn to prove it otherwise or not."
What "proof" has he provided? For the record, just claiming that something has happened does not constitute "proof."
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Tue Dec 13, 2005 at 04:15 PM
"Yes, his research is extreme and in "la la land," but he's providing his proof and its our turn to prove it otherwise or not."
What "proof" has he provided? For the record, just claiming that something has happened does not constitute "proof."
The human-like God from the Bible; that's something utterly weird to believe in, in my opinion. 'Wise' man like the president of the united stated believe things I would call backwards. Well, some wise man believe that.
But about the water christals i'm not so sure.
According to quantum mechanics reality does get only 'shape' once you look/feel/think--> observe something. Positive / Negative feelings/thoughts when putting a paper with a certain text on a bottle of water should have impact on the reality of the water when you look at it later.
I'm sceptic; this doctor might make extra money using photoshop on his pictures, but thought/concentration/feelings do effect other water-bags that browse this planet in quantum-probabilities' wierd-ways I "believe" ;-p
Posted by Flo on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 04:53 AM
But about the water christals i'm not so sure.
According to quantum mechanics reality does get only 'shape' once you look/feel/think--> observe something. Positive / Negative feelings/thoughts when putting a paper with a certain text on a bottle of water should have impact on the reality of the water when you look at it later.
I'm sceptic; this doctor might make extra money using photoshop on his pictures, but thought/concentration/feelings do effect other water-bags that browse this planet in quantum-probabilities' wierd-ways I "believe" ;-p
can somebody with the tools needed please take some photos of the water that is from:
-tap
-microwave
-bottle loved
-bottle hated
and then crystalised in some different ways please.
Posted by Floris on Sat Dec 24, 2005 at 04:55 AM
-tap
-microwave
-bottle loved
-bottle hated
and then crystalised in some different ways please.
Dang. I saw this site in my Google search hits and was hoping there would be something here devoting some time to debunk the book with facts to the contrary.
Instead of fact, it seems all that's on this site is bitter dogmatic predetermined oppinion. Nothing but a bunch of "As-if!" postings.
Oh, well.
Posted by joedogjoe in PDX on Sun Jan 22, 2006 at 10:02 PM
Instead of fact, it seems all that's on this site is bitter dogmatic predetermined oppinion. Nothing but a bunch of "As-if!" postings.
Oh, well.
joedogjoe said:
"Dang. I saw this site in my Google search hits and was hoping there would be something here devoting some time to debunk the book with facts to the contrary."
You're asking us to prove a negative. How about asking the author of this nonsense to prove what he claims under proper scientific testing? Given the nature of his claims, that should be easy, no?
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Mon Jan 23, 2006 at 01:22 PM
"Dang. I saw this site in my Google search hits and was hoping there would be something here devoting some time to debunk the book with facts to the contrary."
You're asking us to prove a negative. How about asking the author of this nonsense to prove what he claims under proper scientific testing? Given the nature of his claims, that should be easy, no?
Page 2 of 6 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last »