Choose a discussion

Cool science shit

10

blogs.technet.com/b/ne... would love this as a coffee table

0 |
10

Scientists create crystal which would allow us to breathe underwater

Being able to breathe underwater has long been a fascination for mankind, but the bulky oxygen tanks and face masks take some of the romance out of it.

They could soon no longer be needed however, thanks to the creation of the "Aquaman Crystal", or to use its proper name, "[{(bpbp)Co2II(NO3)}2(NH2bdc)](NO3)2 * 2H2O".

Just a spoonful of the crystal can absorb all the oxygen from a room.

www.independent.co.uk/...

0 |

fuckin end of the world warfare there

0 |

you need a bucket and not a spoonful

0 |

GEG

0 |

Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences may be real

www.independent.co.uk/...

0 |

We just don't know enough about the brain and processes it goes through when dying, peoples recollections could simply be due to us still being aware for minutes after death

0 |

"There is scientific evidence to suggest that life can continue after death,"

also experiential evidence too Mr Scientists.
tl/dr

0 |

takki you link some good shit when you're not wanking over the IDF/UVF

0 |

and dont forget bullying Muzak

1 |

Goodness me @ hmm/haw'ing @ the prospect of maybe there is life once the meat suit expires

If that's still your getting off point, then the grand prep in bad shape. Upon crossing over you're going to find yourself in a pigeon amongst the cats scenario. And that's putting it lightly

0 |

i wouldn't lose too much sleep over it... out of the 2060 people on the study 1730 died.

Only 9 people on the study reported the near death experience.

2 of those could recall seeing/ hearing stuff...

only one if those cases could be verified, the other was too sick.

it would be interesting to see how reproducible the results are

0 |

Serious neophyte-grade stuff here from pav

0 |

you mean actually reading what the people doing the experiment said... rather than buying into some msm friendly unit- shifting click bait.

fair enough

0 |

So, the only people who could verify for sure are the ones that didn’t return to the flesh – already the predicament glares …How would we get a hold of these folk?

The people you are looking to verify, one way or the other, are the ones who didn’t actually do the thing thing we are testing for? i.e. permanently die

Whole approach is a bit of a shambles. Bet it cost a fortune too. This sort of ‘research’ is about as relevant as dancing is to architecture

0 |

Hardly a shambles, the researchers were investigating the effects of PTSD on resuscitated cardiac arrest survivors. I don't think the dead have much to contribute there.

As for live after death... I gurss we'll just have to rely on Ed the head

0 |

If you are researching life after death, the dead are exactly who you need to be speaking to. It's like doing a study on dogs where all the test subjects are cats

1 |

"the dead are exactly who you need to be speaking to"

lol, oh Blurt... bit.ly/1sfv3ad

0 |

Muzak, since when has your ma been in the IDF/UVF??

0 |

So for proof of life after death we should study those who haven't died yet?

Not making a heap of sense here, takk

0 |

takki, she's always been masterrace provo

0 |

the study was for post traumatic stress disorder in resuscitated patients. nothing at all to do with life after death...

0 |

People who have died and then been resuscitated, yes Blurt.

Although, I'd love to know what your thinking is behind a spot of life after death study with people who are clean dead and not coming back. Is there some special frequency we can tune our radios in to to pick them up, or something?

0 |

May aswell just put the jumpers in a backpack. Makes moving the goal posts easier

"nothing at all to do with life after death..." - lol then you must be reading a different article, telling a different story, with a different 30-point headline

How can you say something so removed from the reality of the article with a straight, non-troll face? There isn't even a mention of 'post traumatic stress disorder' in the article, so that was another juicy figment plucked from the aether

Sometimes I worry about you ... As this self-confessed man of Science, you're pretty swift to abandon that MO, just to have something to say. Adam Beyer called it right with "Walking Contradiction"

0 |

Not the life after death that you are hinting at, Blurt. The article, and the study, is to do with the moments after death, yet before resuscitation. That is made perfectly clear if you read the article, imo. You seem to be thinking that they should have been interviewing dead people.

bit.ly/1vTB8dA

0 |

just you enjoy being distracted by the 30pt headline blurt, leave the truths of the story to the rest of us

0 |

Deductive Reasoning FM, takk

Humorous gifs aside .. “no, no, no, Blurt. The dead are not who we need to speak to” (about being dead). So with that being said, logistically the only thing left to study from there is the living. So you propose studying them to come to conclusions about being dead, even though they aren’t dead yet?

It’s like asking a virgin who one time managed to get a girl into bed but failed to actually bang, what it’s like to have full sex with a whole woman … can you see what i'm getting at?

0 |

If you're gonna imagine things which aren't actually in the article I 'm gonna point it out, pav. Onset of dementia can be slowed down if identified and treated early

Why would you go inventing stuff when the article is there for everyone to read lol? That is a touch bizarre and about as unscientific as it comes

What are these different types of afterlife you mentioned, takki? Break it down. This is new intel to my ears

0 |

I've said it to you about 2/3 times now. Obviously, the study was only concerned with people who had clinically died, but then been resuscitated, hence how they could be questioned/studied. You cant question someone who dies and stays dead.

I'm not sure what part of that you're having difficulty with.

0 |

You haven't answered my question once, never mind 2/3 times ... So i'll ask again: What are these different types of afterlife? Explain them to me. This is new intel

Whatever way you cut it, pretty much a pointless study. Whatever they will find will never be considered 'scientific proof' anyways ... total non-starter

0 |

What are you on about? I've just said. People who are declared clinically dead, then are resuscitated. Then there are people who are declared clinically dead, and stay dead. Obviously the latter cannot be studied in terms of the person having any sort of consciousness as we have no way of communicating with them (due to them being dead).

How on earth is it a pointless study if they have found potential evidence that these people, who have been declared clinically dead, experienced real events for minutes after the moment their heart stopped?

0 |

there you go blurt
www.resuscitationjourn...

0 |

“People who are declared clinically dead, then are resuscitated. Then there are people who are declared clinically dead, and stay dead.” – Not really anything to do with ‘types of Afterlife’, is it? That’s just a description of what happened to the body. So upon inspection of your explanation, we’re actually no farther along than before we bothered to start. All that’s been confirmed is some people can be resuscitated, some cannot …

And the circle is complete, here we are once more. What are these different types of Afterlife you keep mentioning? You brought it up and it’s news to me, so please continue

I consider it a pretty pointless study because no ‘proof’ will ever be concrete enough to appease the material reductionist majority. The two notions, by their very natures, are at odds with each other. It’s like trying to drink water with chopsticks

Suppose ultimately it’s a step in the right direction

0 |

Who keeps mentioning? I haven't said anything about different types of afterlife.

Proof could well be gotten quite easily, in fact. The patient in that article could say how many of the beeps he heard from a machine in the room. Instead of just having beeps on the machine, they could, perhaps, have an audible phrase spoken by a member of the operating team, or machine, then afterwards, they could ask if they heard anything being said. All it would take for proof would be one person to recite the correct phrase.

0 |

blurt attacks the only possible, logical means of studying consciousness in the moments after death with the most pointless non-argument imaginable.

0 |

Have read all sorts of instances along the lines of the beep count story. Heck, this lady saw a blue trainer sitting on a third floor window ledge of the north face of the hospital when dead. Got resuscitated, described it then sent the nurse round to check it out... and there it was. TV link:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=...

Point is, what effect would something else like this have on our current scientific framework? I'd say the impact would be the same as the time with the trainers - nadda - money isn't right

It's like takki and I have done a 180 role reversal on this thread :)

You've always been wild for skittering about the surface, aLEGEND. Stopping when it feels good is the single quickest way to miss the subtleties and it's also the story of your life. Years ago I tried to put you on to the aul soul trap / forced reincarnation loop tip, but you knocked it back saying it was all "too daunting"

If you'd have bothered with that you'd be in better shape to grasp where I'm coming from here. As I already told you, there's no way round that avenue if you want to
get to the bottom of our collective predicament. And only from there can you begin to resolve. It's a harrowing, top yourself grade situation (not that that would be of any use, in either escaping or overcoming) .. But sure, harden us

Do you still deduce that Earth is a school/platform for spiritual development?

0 |

what makes you think anyone would bother trying to grasp where your coming from when you post these rambles that say absolutely nothing.?
just out of curiosity

we don't have a collective predicament here aside from the sophiawright infestation. it's one of those things that would probably just go away if people ignored it...

0 |

And what make you think you can judge how anything could affect scientific frameworks when you latest ropey analogy demonstrates your ignorance all thing science, yet again?

0 |

The biggest question of all is why do you come with the same robotic angles as nearly three years ago. Where's the progression man?

0 |

You talkin existential being? Or Anthropomorphic deity?

0 |

how do you know i do?
... if i'm still trying to baby step you through the basics i can't show you the next level...take the stabilisers off your bike now you'll just fall over and cut your knee (sad face)...

i tried giving you the space to develop on the quantum pigeon thread and your very own matrix theory thread but you just want stay in the same place making the same poor points , badly.

if i didn't think you were trolling i'd almost feel sorry for you.lol.

0 |

Why the immediate dash to a corner of sarcasm lol? That's like from hands lowered to drawbridge raised in one post. A bit over-sarc, even by your own high standards ... First impression based off that reaction is, chap doesn't actually have a concise point to make here, and I suppose he's thinking saying something is better than nothing (wrong)

It's 'subtle' things like that which have always humoured me about you, pav. Despite the corridor'ed swagger, your extensive mechanical intelligence has rendered you predominately oblivious to a lot of the subtleties of life. As a result you've grown one big leg proverbial leg, whilst letting the other one atrophie into a wee T-Rex arm-leg

This is why you'll always struggle to engage me in the manner you intend

0 |

there was no sarcasm.
i don't struggle to engage you in the manner i intend. I don't have any expectation of a coherent response from you because you have very little to say... just a bit of nasty sniping or an attempt at being 'random'.

0 |

Sorry, but of course there was. Check out the trademark ".lol."

For someone who posts with no expectation, you plant a truck load of bait. Not just in my vicinity, and I don't think we'd be short of witnesses on that front

0 |

the lol was simply a comment on how unfunny it is to be here, again... aimed more at myself for letting you turn something interesting into another all about blurt thread.
the posts are with no expectation of a coherent response.

0 |

Worth checking out the links in the post below as well...

A Brief History of Scientists Hunting for Time Travelers
gizmodo.com/a-brief-hi...

0 |

"Point is, what effect would something else like this have on our current scientific framework? I'd say the impact would be the same as the time with the trainers - nadda - money isn't right"

Scientists throughout the last century have constantly studied things which may not appear to be of much day to day interest at the time, or had much monetary value, yet years or decades down the line become highly important, stable parts of our understanding and lives.

I actually think you *want* science to avoid the topics you often bring up. I think you'd rather they stayed 'fringe'. It's like conspiracy theorists who just cant accept the truth. You're always hunting for another reason why the widely accepted facts are wrong, and why you're (unprovable) version of the facts is spot on. It's exactly how the conspiracy folks get on.

0 |

incredible chemical reactions

0 |

some cool reactions there RJ. remember seeing some of these on a poor resolution youtube videos... always wanted to find better made version. it like an internet dream come true

but wondering just how real this is?

www.theguardian.com/en...

1 |

Crazy if true but I believe its only a matter of time, the amount of money and investment governments and private sectors are making into this is crazy huge that it'll eventually turn up something, heck didn't the big Lazer facility in the states achieve parity recently with energy in/out??

0 |

That's a very interesting article.

0 |