Philospher's mead

[lostnbronx]

The most disturbing aspect of this thread to me, beside the fact that it has now wandered very far afield from one Board member's description of a mead-in-the-works, is that there seems to be a tendency to hoot Palecricket down simply because his philosophy runs counter to some other people's. I don't recall this sort of vehemence in the discussion we had on moon phase effects on fermentation, and that doesn't have any scientific basis at all. It didn't matter then, because we were talking about personal philosophies influencing personal descissions about someone's personal mead. The same is true here. Palecricket isn't saying we should all be doing this, or, in fact that anyone should -- he's simply taking a look at it. And some folks seem to find that offensive. Personally, I find that additude offensive. This thread has now been completely co-opted into a debate on scientific validity. I'm sorry, but that's rude.

Again, I know absolutely nothing about m-state matter, and to be honest, I don't care to: I have enough on my plate trying to understand myself, let alone the state of the universe. In other words, I'm no scientist. I'm not ashamed of this, because most people in the world aren't scientists either. Most people on this board are not. I might even hazard to write that only Homebrew has the qualifications to define himself that way if he wanted to. Palecricket is reporting on a mead experiment that he's conducting. He has a perfect right to satisfy his curiousity. As this is an open Forum, he has a perfect right to post about it here. Likewise we have a right to chime in on it and disagree. We do not have a right, however, to tell him he's somehow wrong or foolish to believe what he believes. The moon-phase method of fermentation has some historical coroboration, but in modern times, it basically amounts to a philosophy of nature and/or a religious belief for some. And that's okay. It's wonderful, in fact. No one is wrong here, except the person or persons who want to create a hostile environment for those they disagree with.

This is a most civilized Forum, wherein people's differences and opinions are openly embraced and even celebrated. Stating you disagree with someone is enough. No one is -- or should be -- trying to win a debate.

-David

 

[palecricket1]

I'm guessing Oskaar and Joe are going to be polite, so, I'll just have to do the debunking myself.

"m-state elements" and "orbitally rearranged monoatomic elements" are so deep down into pseudoscience that I think its passed into the occult.

This is one thing that I regretfully must agree. It has become virtually absorbed by the occultists, mostly becuase of their great interest in the topic. That doesn't change whether it's true or not, though, simply that it appeals largely to that audience.
The occult is, essentially, science watered down with mysticism. Alchemy, likewise, is the junction of chemistry and mysticism. This kind of stuff happens all the time. In sujects such as this where the theological implications are so great, there is an even greater interest in it by the occultists. But simply because something involves the occult is no reason to regard it as false or pseudoscientific; take the time to consider it. Not that you haven't BTW; you've made it clear that you've already done that. If you still feel the way you do, that's ok. My work often dapples in these "gray" areas, and I'm use to people not accepting the things I study as truth. The high prices of the pure substance, BTW, are simply because they take the metallic element and convert into the m-state element, so it has to be more expensive than the metal. What I use is the naturally occuring form, which is not as potent and is often an m-state bonded to some functional group like a carbonate or hydroxyl group. Nevertheless it's a heck of a lot less expensive. Now in regards to stability, and specifically over time, m-states transmute slowly, even when exposed to light. Magnetic fields agitate them but unless they are strong and within close proximity will not cause any problems. And for the record they're not monoatomic; there are different degrees of cooper pairing that can yield groups of m-states, and even compounds involving them (such as the m-hydroxides I use). In my own experience I have found that these are more stable and less affected by electromagnetism.
yes, m-platinum is toxic, but from the anecdotes displaying its toxicity, the dose of both platinum and alcohol must be significant, and there is very little, if any, platinum in my sample. Nevertheless I will take necessary precausions before consumption and magnetically force them out of solution just be safe.
Fortuna, you have provided quite a bit of evidence against it, but mostly it seems that you target discrediting it. Could you provide any evidence that directly contradicts the theory or makes it impossible to occur, or something of that nature? I'm openminded and I will change my views if you are correct.

 

[palecricket1]

Palecricket1,

My opinion is based on a degree in Microbiology and another in Chemistry plus 13 years working as a research scientist, not on something that I read on the internet. The work I do requires me to keep up on scientific progress.

All that aside, I am sorry to hear about your father and I wish him a complete recovery.

Peace.

Much appreciated homebrew. I'm glad to hear that you base your opinion on experience, and I say the same to you: while it is noteworthy that there are not peer-reviewed theories on the matter, is there anything that makes it particularly impossible or physically unlikely?
BTW this is just a shot in the dark here but I think one major reason why there are no peer-reviewed theories out there may be because
1) many of the people studying this are, as fortuna pointed out, occultists. Based on the occultists I know, they tend to not really care about the scientific method or what anyone else thinks of their findings so they aren't too likely to share their findings outside of their own circles. I believe Newton was like that with his gravitational theory as well, go figure then again he was an occultist too, and look at what he discovered.
2) Alot of these more radical, albiet eccentric concepts take quite some time to be fully accepted and really start to gain public interest (aside from industrial interest, which in this case is already making a killing off it). Take for example Kellog, who supported daily enemas with YOGURT! :-X :-X Hard to believe this man came up with cornflakes. Odd, very. Nevertheless the concept of replacing intestinal bacteria is now being used, e.g. acidophillus pills.

It's interesting to see how opinions differ so greatly within scientists! A while back when I first got involved with this I had a discussion with a friend of mine who's a physics teacher and he was rather intriuged when I told him about the theory.

 

[Jmattioli]

Wow,
You all are too heavy for this mind. I know very little about science and my methods are a bit pragmatic. However, Science seems to me to work out of a pattern of content rather than context. Many discoveries have come out of intuition and then later had verification with science. Mead is the topic and regardless of ones intellectual or scientific understanding, what is the need to take a position on his experiment? Christopher Columbus didn't fit into the paradigm of the thinking of his time. It seems to me that my perception one way or the other is not important. What is important is that we continue to encourage experimentation no matter what our personal beliefs and that each person feel free to follow their own hunches without antagonizm from the peanut gallery. ;D

Joe

P.S. Let's not turn this into a religion. Mead making is meant to be FUN and enjoyed. After a few drinks who really cares who is right and who is wrong. Let the experiments begin and let us make philisophical mead. :-* :-X

 

[Dmntd]

Palecricket,

Are you running three batches for this test;

1. With your energizer.

2. With a proven energizer.

3. No energizer at all.

with must made as one batch, and pitched from the same yeast starter?

Anthony

 

[memento]

This topic is moving very fast! I study on the fringes myself, and having received by BS in Nuclear Engineering in 1992, I'm VERY familiar with the whole cold fusion thing and other things that seemed mysterious at one time (like radiation, etc). I've never heard of m-states, so I won't comment on it specifically.

A couple of general points that I think are relevant.

1. If you are not taught what the boundaries are supposed to be, then you are not bound by them!
2. It is very difficult and more often than not impossible to prove that something doesn't exist or didn't happen. The burden of proof lies with those trying to prove it, not disprove it. Develop a theory, then prove it.
3. Never be bound by "traditional" science. That's the only way to progress. There are MANY examples of this, some mentioned here.

And to echo Dmntd - I asked earlier in the thread if a batch was being run with fermaid. One is being run with no energizer.

 

[Oskaar]

Hi All,

This is a pretty lively thread with some very differing viewpoints so I'll ask that everyone remain mindful of being civil and respectful to each other's point of views and opinions. Let's keep it constructive please.

Thanks,

Oskaar

 

[JoeM]

Well, I suppose there is a lot I can say here, but I don’t think I’m going to say most of it in the interest of everyones sanity. The few things I would like to point out are:

1) Dmntd “For example, medical schools don't even teach basic nutrition”
I’m graduating medical school in 8 months and I can tell you that we are definitely taught about nutrition and how to properly council patients (at least at my medical school).

2) I’ve seen a lot of treatments and a lot of science that many people would say is crazy. That fact is thought that there is always at least some research and literature to back it up (unless of course you are one of the pioneering researchers in the field, which I’m assuming you aren’t claiming to be). All I’m saying is show me at least some credible, class 1 literature. I dont want you to do this to "prove" yourself, i want to see it so i can learn about it. You say that there are a lot of occultists following these theories and that doesn’t necessarily make them false. I agree, but if what you’re claiming is true there has to be some valid data somewhere.

3) My girlfriend has a PhD in Neurochemistry, and as far as either of us know (not that we know everything) the brain is not composed of 5% Rhodium, and the only websites I can find that substantiate this also claim that:

“Extraterrestrials from the planet Nibiru came to Earth with the primary purpose of mining gold and precious elements, and they created mankind in order to have someone to work the mines” and that the m-state elements give you the power to “have perfect telepathy, Be able to levitate, Project one’s thoughts into someone else’s mind, Heal by laying on of hands, and, Cleanse or resurrect the dead within two or three days after they have died.”

4) Lastly I just want to say that i agree with whoever said that the burden of proof in this instance is upon you. I'm not saying that you absolutly must prove yourself, i'm just reacting to your comment that the disbelivers should prove that you are false. To claim something and then say to disbelievers “prove to me that it doesn’t exist” is a scientific fallacy.

 

[palecricket1]

Palecricket,

Are you running three batches for this test;

1. With your energizer.
2. With a proven energizer.
3. No energizer at all.

with must made as one batch, and pitched from the same yeast starter?

Anthony

yes, all except for the part about a proven energizer. When i started the experiment i was looking more for the presence of an effect, not so much to compare it to a yeast energizer. To be perfectly honest I'm not sure if this will help or hurt the yeast, claims have been made that som microorganisms are hurt by m-states. My thoughts in starting this was whether or not the yeast would benefit from this, which would indicate whether or not it may have been m-states in the hardwater that was improving their growth. It was only later that I realized its implications as an energizer. I don't carry any energizers or nutrients because I'm not the biggest fan or chemicals. I'll be sure in a future trial, however, to include a known energizer.

 

[palecricket1]

3) My girlfriend has a PhD in Neurochemistry, and as far as either of us know (not that we know everything) the brain is not composed of 5% Rhodium, and the only websites I can find that substantiate this also claim that:

“Extraterrestrials from the planet Nibiru came to Earth with the primary purpose of mining gold and precious elements, and they created mankind in order to have someone to work the mines” and that the m-state elements give you the power to “have perfect telepathy, Be able to levitate, Project one’s thoughts into someone else’s mind, Heal by laying on of hands, and, Cleanse or resurrect the dead within two or three days after they have died.”

4) Lastly I just want to say that i agree with whoever said that the burden of proof in this instance is upon you. I'm not saying that you absolutly must prove yourself, i'm just reacting to your comment that the disbelivers should prove that you are false. To claim something and then say to disbelievers “prove to me that it doesn’t exist” is a scientific fallacy.

I will double check the source of the claim that rhodium makes up 5% of the brain by mass, but I'm next to positive my source was quoting one of Hudson's experiments, so anything he had to about aliens or whatnot wouldn't really be relative.
I also agree that the burden of proof is upon me. This is why I'm not really trying to prove that m-states are real. I also hold that any theory is plausible until proven false, especially when there is evidence to back it. I can offer my own anecdotal evidence if you like, but that's only as good as my lone observations were and without extensive study I suppose there really is no way of ruling out the many sources of error involved in such evidence. I guess that's one more reason to carry out this experiment -- to have some evidence that was obtained via the scientific method. BTW the cyser is displaying something abnormal: a large amount of thick foam with very fine bubbles. This doesn't usually happen with this yeast and is not present in the control.

 

[Oskaar]

Last post Moderated as more argumentative than constructive and thread capped by Oskaar 09/08/2005

Let's move on please