08-17-2008, 06:05 PM
Music and Plant Growth
Scientists took two equally healthy plants of the same size, age, and type. They puts Plant A in a room with a radio that plays only classical music. Then they put Plant B in a room with a radio that plays only rock and roll. Both plants receive equal light and water. After six weeks, Plant A has grown six inches.
Plant B, on the other hand, has grown only three inches, which is the average growth rate for these types of plants. They repeat this experiment and gets the same results. Therefore, plants grow better when exposed to classical music than to rock and roll or no music at all.
Now I'm not a qualified biologist, but plants don't have ears, do they? And their tissues are made out of patterns of cells just like ours, and they have metabolism, and they convert light into other things (energy) like we do (vitamins). I should go cold turkey on mainstream music.
More information on:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jh...sic130.xml
Words and Water Molecules
Dr Emoto found that typing words out and taping them onto jars of water changes the molecules in them depending on what words were attached.
Words like "Love and Gratitude" or "Thank you" created small clusters of hexagons. Those of "Hitler", "I hate you so much I want to kill you", or "You fool" has almost no clusters but randomly deformed shapes.
He has similar results after doing group prayers on the jars, beaming negative or positive thoughts, negative thoughts having the same results as if attaching bad words to the jars.
How does water know the words? They don't have eyes. They're separated from the word by the glass. Do words have resonance?
A large portion of our body is water. When we think, we are beaming thoughts. But water is just nearby; it's even in our brain. It seems like we can take advantage of this, or continue to cause chaos from within.
More information and diagrams here:
http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/..._emoto.htm
Ps. I'm not sure how credible Dr. Emoto's work is. I'm trying to find the original source of his work.
Scientists took two equally healthy plants of the same size, age, and type. They puts Plant A in a room with a radio that plays only classical music. Then they put Plant B in a room with a radio that plays only rock and roll. Both plants receive equal light and water. After six weeks, Plant A has grown six inches.
Plant B, on the other hand, has grown only three inches, which is the average growth rate for these types of plants. They repeat this experiment and gets the same results. Therefore, plants grow better when exposed to classical music than to rock and roll or no music at all.
Now I'm not a qualified biologist, but plants don't have ears, do they? And their tissues are made out of patterns of cells just like ours, and they have metabolism, and they convert light into other things (energy) like we do (vitamins). I should go cold turkey on mainstream music.
More information on:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jh...sic130.xml
Words and Water Molecules
Dr Emoto found that typing words out and taping them onto jars of water changes the molecules in them depending on what words were attached.
Words like "Love and Gratitude" or "Thank you" created small clusters of hexagons. Those of "Hitler", "I hate you so much I want to kill you", or "You fool" has almost no clusters but randomly deformed shapes.
He has similar results after doing group prayers on the jars, beaming negative or positive thoughts, negative thoughts having the same results as if attaching bad words to the jars.
How does water know the words? They don't have eyes. They're separated from the word by the glass. Do words have resonance?
A large portion of our body is water. When we think, we are beaming thoughts. But water is just nearby; it's even in our brain. It seems like we can take advantage of this, or continue to cause chaos from within.
More information and diagrams here:
http://www.life-enthusiast.com/twilight/..._emoto.htm
Ps. I'm not sure how credible Dr. Emoto's work is. I'm trying to find the original source of his work.
