Cosmology, Quantum Mechanics & Consciousness Message Board › Flaska water bottle

Flaska water bottle

A former member
Post #: 1
Hi.

We have just begun promoting a new water bottle in UK market. It's called Flaska, it's a 500ml glass water bottle with one big difference/advantage. It actually improves water poured in it by applying scientific information improinted into its glass. Water becomes restructured in 5 minutes. Flaska makes water "alive" again, reduces negative effect of genotoxic chemicals and makes water softer and easier to drink.

I've been looking for a community that has something to do with homeopathy and quantum physics and would like to begin some kind of discussion if anybody is interested.

More on Flaska water bottle can be found on our web-site: www.flaska.co.uk

Cheers!
Camilla M.
user 7151822
London, GB
Post #: 1
The physicists on here will require experimental data for the detoxifying of whichever chemicals or bacteria in water. Are you talking about arsenic? Making water more like springwater could just mean dissolving a few natural minerals into it from the flask walls, silica being the most likely. When it comes to enlivening water, this doesn't sound like any commercial process I've heard about and I am unclear how the water would be effected. Quantum physics probably doesn't have anything to say on biological interaction with low emfs, nor how applying these to water in silica test tubes might alter its structure other than through solution; water has naturally changing multidirectional bonds oscillating all the time, it is not a static formation. The main biological affect looked at with regard to emfs is usually thermal. Homeopathy, having no recognised mechanism, is no more likely to be seen as having any effect on water or biology.

I have heard of Viktor Shauberger's ideas and work on large volumes of moving water, such as for loggers using rivers and specially curved distribution channels, the idea was to use the momentum from turbulent flows to maximum effect in shifting the logs efficiently so that they would not jam and also to learn how the water wore away banks, to maintain harmony with the river environment whilst logging. This doesn't translate into affects on small amounts of water such as within our bodies. He did have some speculative theories on negative energy but nothing has been seen of this since. Dr. Emoto has not offered proof of how or whether emotions might affect water and this would be difficult given that they are different in kind, with emotions generated purely for our own sensate and cognitive systems. Wilhelm Reich was an elan vitalist who thought we might quantify living fields which has not happened yet.

A glass bottle is probably a better carrier as a portable water bottle since the taste of plastic might be noticeable and indeed there has been talk about nasty and toxic hormone disruptor subtances like bisphenol in plastic containers. However, packaging manufacturers are aware of these charges and have begun making changes and according to this site the worry with regard to plastic constainers may be unfounded.
Briefly, extract below:

http://www.napcor.com...­

"How do I learn more about the Goethe University Study (Frankfurt, Germany) on bottled water with regard to endocrine disruptors?

This study looked at endocrine disruptor activity in mineral water packaged in glass, PET and Tetra pack. According to an independent analysis of the study conducted by the German BfR (Federal Institute for Health Risk Assessment), released on March 18, 2009:

"Samples of various different brands of mineral water showed considerable differences in the test system used. Differences with respect to the package (glass compared to PET) cannot, however, be inferred from the data. The possibility discussed by the authors that these substances originate from the plastic PET itself is rather doubtful because comparable hormonal activity was measured both in water samples from glass bottles and in water samples from PET bottles of the same mineral water brand."

For more on the BfR analysis of this study and other analyses and statements, please view or download the following pdf documents: German BfR (link to PDF), Plastics Europe (link to PDF), and the European Federation of Bottled Water (link to PDF)."
A former member
Post #: 5
Hi Camilla.

Thank you for your reply. I can see you have lots of adequate knowledge. Truly there are scarce scientific evidence on how water structure affects human body.

The inventor of Flaska was actually growing strawberries before he knew anything about living water. At one point in time he began watering one strawberry field with a water that has been restructured. After the harvest these strawberries were firmer. and their durability was prolonged by one day, which is a lot when strawberries are concerned. The yield was as much as 18% greater than on the other fields watered with ordinary water. The plants were much more vigorous after the season and were less affected by diseases. (Quote from his web-site).

I have tried Flaska water bottle in an area that has lots of chlorine in tap water. In a few minutes taste of that water improved drastically. Chlorine could not have disappeared but the taste of it was greatly reduced. Where hard water is Flaska is able to soften it.

I attach a link where two test results can be done: http://www.flaska.co.uk/flaskawaterbottletests.html­. We are in the process of finding a trustful institution in UK which would examine the impact Flaska has on water. Any suggestions?

Kind regards!
Paul
user 2439713
Sydney, AU
Post #: 43
Can I just comment on something that the OP said. The group is obviously one that concerns itself with Quantum Mechanics, but there is no theoretical or empirical link between Quantum Physics (which is well-researched and documented) and Homeopathy (which is poorly researched and whose validity is still open to debate).
lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 56

l'm in total agreement, Paul. lt would be very odd indeed were we to discover that the rules of quantum mechanics predict the behaviour of macroscopic systems -- in the case of liquid water, a condensed matter system which is about as chaotically disorganised as it's possible to get for condensed matter systems -- in such a way that qubits could nevertheless somehow be stored despite the phenomenal number of changes of state ( = "collapsing of the wave function") occurring each second concerning every molecule within the bulk phase.

Macroscopic quantum coherence has only been directly observed within superfluids and 2 distinct classes of superconductor. The reason that their behaviour has been found to be describable according to the rules of QM rather than classically is that the degrees of freedom of the component of interest within such systems -- respectively, single helium atoms in the case of He-4 and pairs of atoms in the case of He-3; and pairs of conductance band electrons in the superconductivity situation -- is very sharply confined to the ground state energetically speaking. lt increasingly appears to be the case both on theoretical and observational grounds that it is the breaking up of quantum coherence which makes the world appear to be so "classical" both within the bulk state (= a huge number of positional degrees of freedom to be potentially occupied, but "denied access") and/or at temperatures high enough above absolute zero that the components of the system in question are no longer susceptible to long-range non-local correlation/phase-locking. (As in the case of Bose condensates -- i.e., in this case a huge number of energetic degrees of freedom to be potentially occupied, but "denied access").

Although not directly observable, theory ever since Chandrasekhar in the 1930s can lend us a high degree of confidence in the supposition that the cores both of white dwarf stars and most of the material of neutron stars are also non-locally correlated despite the fact that the relevant temperatures are, conservatively, several hundred million to a few billion K. This happens because the gravitational compression of matter in such systems is so extreme that despite the available energy the positional degrees of freedom are no longer open, and the sheer pressure confines either electrons or nucleons into identical lowest-available states, so that they have become de facto long-range correlated.

All that having been said, l suspect that this guy is just trying to sell people some nostrum or other, but in the spirit of a fair-minded empiricism l mustn't allow myself the luxury of prejudging ..

The fact is, if he wants to convince the rest of the world that his claims are true, then he has to put in the work!







lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 57

l should point out that in yesterday's posting l forgot to mention lasers.

They are of course also a species of macroscopic quantum phenomenology, although l admit that l just don't know whether they have been either predicted or observed to occur naturally. Let's face it, just about everything else has been "invented" by the natural world billions of years at least before human beings began to avail themselves of modern, physical theory-driven technology.

The latter is a development which ex-engineer and career research embryologist Lewis Wolpert dates to around the 1840s, and l think he's right; it has been said by a philosopher of science that "science owes more to the steam engine than the steam engine owes to science", and that's undeniably true. The Steam Age was begun by craftsmen and metalworkers, not scientists. They could only be called "engineers" in the sense that they were mechanical engineers and were thus allying their solidly practical common sense to a sound grasp of Archimedean statics as a subset of the much more recent Newtonian mechanics. They thus had a mathematically reliable basis upon which to predict the positions, directions and magnitudes of bulk motions, frictions and mechanical advantages but nothing else. Tinkering about with the burning of various fuels and mechanical designs, the race was on to find engines which could perform the most work for the least amount of fuel burnt -- i.e. to find what by the mid-19th century would become known as the most thermodynamically efficient engine. (Petrol and diesel internal combustion engines are extremely inefficient in these absolute terms, as it happens.) similarly, electromagnetic phenomena were little more than laboratory curiosities -- suitable at best for producing muscle contractions within parts of dead animal -- before the enormous empirical advances made firstly by Faraday and then the knowledge was systematised in the recognisably "modern" way of mathematical physics by Maxwell more or less at the same time that thermodynamics was becoming similarly systematised.

Thus, one could regard "old" technology -- as a continuation, effectively, of what mankind had slowly been developing ever since the Palaeolithic (and chimpanzees are developing today, even to the extent of fashioning spears) as that material-modification activity driven solely by visual imagination, personal acquaintance with the handling characteristics of materials, and the unsystematic noting of the regularities in behaviour of certain-sized and -shaped objects under specific conditions -- as effectively terminating at least in the then-"advanced" world with the twin advent of electrodynamics and thermodynamics as fully-formed physical theories, and of chemistry -- particularly organic chemistry. Thereafter, it would only be very rarely that someone would be able fortuitously to hit upon some labour-saving technical idea without any theoretical background either within physics or chemistry. Henceforth, it was to become the case that theory was to dictate what would be practically possible and what not possible before even trying to build the technology in question!

Anyway, l'm digressing in distressingly windbag mode once more l'm afraid. The point l sought to stress is that about the only piece of technology which to my knowledge has not been "invented by nature first" is the laser! Everything else -- rotary electric motors within muscle fibres, pinhole cameras within eyes, acousto-electric transducers within ears, ultrasonically mediated object tracking and communication and even the detection of the emotions and intentions of others by brain-scanning and echo-detection, information processing within brains, natural levers, powered flight, and synchrotron radiation originating from Jupiter have all been "developed" entirely without the application even of the faintest glimmer of intelligence. Even nuclear reactors have been "anticipated" by the natural world. (At Oklo in Africa, and nearly 2 billion years ago.)


A former member
Post #: 51
All good stuff but I thought this discussion was about an amazing glass bottle. I must have lost the plot!

May I say to Andreas that I looked at the website, I looked up the allium test, and it does seem to me that none of this is based on proper science. Camilla clearly knows about stuff in this territory and her opening comment said as much. Of course if you are in business to make money out of something that is based on pseudo-science rather than real science then good luck to you; many fortunes have been made that way no doubt. But this is not the discussion group for your water bottle!

By the way did anyone see the Dimbleby lecture on the BBC by Sir Paul Nurse on the importance of science for the future of this country? I thought it was rather inspiring: a wake-up call to our decision-makers. It's on BBC iPlayer right now.

Ian, despite the irrelevance I cannot resist commenting on your interesting observation that the laser is the only piece of fundamental modern technology that has not already been used by Nature. To the best of my knowledge that is correct. What surprises me, given your apparent near-mastery of physics by most standards, is that you don't know who it was who first identified the theoretical phenomenon of 'light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation'. It was none other than Albert Einstein - in 1917 just after he had expended 10 years of sweat and tears producing General Relativity. Incredible! So we should thank Einstein for the speed of supermarket check-outs as well as a number of other things we take for granted, like nuclear power.

lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 58
All good stuff but I thought this discussion was about an amazing glass bottle. I must have lost the plot!

Hello Andrew, you lucky sod!

Welcome back (?) from your tropical jaunt. Not only have you aged less than the rest of us, abandoned here in until-recently near-freezing higher latitudes -- due to the fact that being nearer the Equator you have been astride a slightly "fatter" slice of the Earth's interior (because of the oblateness produced by its spin) and you therefore encountered a slightly stronger (= "slightly time-slowing") gravitational field compared to us, but you've also been walking around on top of a slice of the Earth which -- because the planet is as near-as-dammit a rigid body rotator -- is moving faster (according to the judgement of observers situated within any inertial frame whatsoever) than parallel slices lying at higher latitudes as well.

[l.e. Andrew is younger not only courtesy of general relativity, but also due to the entirely distinct special relativistic time-dilatation effect as well. Double whammy! As l said: LUCKY SOD!]


May I say to Andreas that I looked at the website, I looked up the allium test, and it does seem to me that none of this is based on proper science.

Well someone has to say that, don't they, really? (Sound of drumming fingers.) .. And of course, Andrew's powers of diplomacy are as we've previously witnessed second to none. Makes me wonder whether your travels are in the service of some U.N. Peace Resolution lnititative or something.

Camilla clearly knows about stuff in this territory and her opening comment said as much.

She certainly does. (l can vouch for that!)

Of course if you are in business to make money out of something that is based on pseudo-science rather than real science then good luck to you; many fortunes have been made that way no doubt. But this is not the discussion group for your water bottle!

Diplomacy! Amazing! Now l'm beginning to feel like Brian Cox. (Raises eyes skyward in rapt wonder.)

By the way did anyone see the Dimbleby lecture on the BBC by Sir Paul Nurse on the importance of science for the future of this country?

Yes. Truly excellent. l second Andrew's advocacy. (To be read in his next sentence!)

I thought it was rather inspiring: a wake-up call to our decision-makers. It's on BBC iPlayer right now.

Ian, despite the irrelevance

wink

I cannot resist commenting on your interesting observation that the laser is the only piece of fundamental modern technology that has not already been used by Nature. To the best of my knowledge that is correct. What surprises me, given your apparent near-mastery of physics by most standards, is that you don't know who it was who first identified the theoretical phenomenon of 'light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation'. It was none other than Albert Einstein - in 1917 just after he had expended 10 years of sweat and tears producing General Relativity. Incredible!

Gosh. lrrelevant physics-gusher l might be, but l didn't say that l don't know. lt was in his "A and B probabilities" paper. Even l thought that a second-order informative excursion was a little too extreme in the circumstances.

lnterestingly enough, his consideration of spontaneous state-transitions as well as of stimulated emission began what was for him (and many other "instinctive classicists") the long descent down the slippery slope toward acknowledging the inevitability of the probability interpretation into quantum mechanics .. which development was effectively "topped out" 10 years later in his famous letter to max Born in 1927. (At least l think that was the one containing the phrase "l do not believe that The Old One plays dice".


So we should thank Einstein for the speed of supermarket check-outs as well as a number of other things we take for granted, like nuclear power.

Sorry for having to demur at this point but that's a popular myth (as l suspect you know). E = mc^2 "only" furnished our theoretical understanding of what's going on. However, the discovery of the neutron in 1932 andf Lise Meitner's discovery of the fision chain reaction within uranium in 1939 are the practical developments which really set the seal on things. Nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors would have happened anyway.

To paraphrase Michael Caine: Not many people know this, but the idea for the nuclear fission chain reaction was first conceived in Britain (!) in 1933 (!) lmmigrant Hungarian engineer/physicist Leo Szilard was crossing Southampton Row just south of Russell Square when it just "hit him". (He dismissed it one week later after having lodged the idea at the Admiralty Office. Silly, but given the military implications it would l suspect in any case have been very difficult for him to have been able to make any actual money out of it!)

The zebra crossing's still there! (l reckon the GLA or the Plaque Society or English Heritage or whoever ought to erect a Blue Plaque to commemorate the fact.)



A former member
Post #: 52
Whoops! Looks like I mis-read your second sentence, Ian, and under-estimated your encyclopaedic knowledge. A foolish mistake I will try not to repeat.

That bit about nuclear fission being discovered on a zebra crossing makes for a pretty good line in scientific small talk. I must go and look for it some time. On that sort of theme, one of my drinking haunts of long ago was the pub where Watson and Crick announced they had found the secret of life, the helix structure of DNA. Which brings us nicely full circle to the allium test!
lan B.
user 10895495
London, GB
Post #: 59

Well, "encyclopaedic" maybe, but also maybe a little disorganised until pressed by others to think. Thank you for the kind if strictly untrue compliment, Andrew. (The older l get, perhaps the only compensatioon is that l find that things tend to "gel" more spontaneously than when l was a whippersnapper, when making the right connections required furious and prolonged effort. l take that observation as tentative support for the hypothesis that all of our knowledge -- no matter how "abstract"/procedural rather than "concrete" and literal -- is organised after the manner of literal, geographical cognitive maps. When one first moves to live in a new area, there is initially a different feeling about the place which signals (obviously) unfamiliarity. As one actively explores -- and particularly when, blundering semi-stochastically about, one re-intersects part of one's earlier route from a different direction -- this feeling disappears, to be replaced by one of simple, taken-for-granted expectation of repetition of the now-familiar. lt is only at this stage that one begins to "stop thinking about the problem". As said l take this situation to be pretty analogous to long-striven-for familiarity with more abstract subject-matter such as physics or mathematics, and this is also why l was unable to accept at face value Peter's division of cognitive style into disjoint sets of "knowledge-based" rather than "understanding-based". As the familiarity born of repetition and "novel cognitive re-entry" into recently familiar "territory" grows, and the "unknown space" becomes more frequently transected by already-trodden avenues of approach, so does an understanding of the totality -- concomitant with an unreflective ability to navigate from one node to another even if that particular sequence of steps has not been taken before -- grow at the expense of the novice's merely crammed listing of disconnected singular facts. (The latter being "knowing that" rather than "knowing how", although even this distinction has recently been drawn into question by a philosopher of my personal acquaintance.)

Re the Szilard anecdote, l actually heard it from the redoubtable Professor Lewis Wolpert (already mentioned in some posting either on the Msge Board or in quick exchange with Peter last week ). His son's research -- into cybernetics -- is even more exciting than his father's, lMHO. (His work on efference copies does l think lead us a long way into understanding the scientifically vexed question of "consciousness" in a scientifically respectable way ..

.. rather than simple "personal development" navel-gazing.

Re Crick and Watson -- the priority in listing their names surely lies that way round rather than the other -- perhaps they were inspired by vortices in their beers (?)




Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy