 internet hogwash. Nothing negative about it…just comment bait.
It’s not. I’ve done the experiments with my students several time as part of anti-bullying instruction.
Sorry, but what about your aggression toward someone who simply expressed doubt? Doubt is a good thing – reality, in all its complexity, can be understood as that which can withstand doubt without any problem. I’d just say: let people doubt what you believe and love them for it.
Cooked rice is full of water, therefore it is the water in the rice that is affected. The rice is merely the vehicle/vessel. We are mostly made of water percentage wise. When harsh words are directed at a human, it is the WATER WITHIN that responds. There is much documentation of the effects of verbal abuse on both children and adults and the resultant psychological and emotional scarring that results. Makecthe connection…if you are capable.
Remember that Emoto’s primary work is with WATER: I believe he showing that rice (or anything else) “responds” to the water (within it, or that it is in), being positively or adversely affected by the voiced intention of the participating consciousness. “Positively” being a judgment, of course, but with “growth” (vs. “decay” or “stagnation”) considered to be “positive” in the consensus reality, I would agree that this is a good example of the ability of water to both receive and transmit information from the Field of consciousness.
How do the bacteria know you’re not addressing them?
In quantum mechanics a particle can tell whether you’re observing it or not and acts upon that. We do not know how but they do.
If it’s focusing on the rice, then why did he make his conclusion based on the presence of the bacteria and/or mold?
Or are you saying that the mold, bacteria and rice are smart enough to know who the school children were talking to, and discern the rice as the intended recipient of the comments? O_o
It’s not about the fungus or bacteria. It’s about the breakdown of the rice. The negatively led to the rice breaking down and becoming susceptible to bacteria much faster than the other specimen. I tried the experiment and got interesting results too.
they are negative life forms, that why cancers is a funguses and the body needs to be acidic for negative bacteria and funguses to thrive, the doctors know this and because it is a revolving door to make money they wont tell you that.
kimmy ware, you can’t be serious! That is so insulting to suggest docors who treat cancer patients are only in in for the money. Shame on you.
Well – many doctors are “by the books” doctors. Let’s remember that doctors endorsed Camel Cigarettes as “healthy”. Or do we suffer from short term memory loss in regards to history?
Doctors were once ignorant to the full dangers of cigarette smoke….so by all means let us now assume that they are lying to millions of dead and dying cancer patients just to turn a buck. There is some serious broken logic behind this. Oncologists must run into a serious dilemma when they are diagnosed with cancer. “Continue making money off of this elaborate lie, or save my own life? Choices, coices.”
I disagree. I’ve read documents from oncologists when asked if they or their family members had cancer would do chemo treatments and 100% said NO. They are struck by law to only offer chemo and radiation. They cannot offer alternative treatments or face losing their license.
“caner is a funguses” is factually so wrong that it is very hard to take the rest serious…sorry you disqualified yourself…
Not at all; all three jars contained bacteria and yeasts, which all thrived– the difference between the containers is WHICH yeasts and bacteria won out. In the “Thank You” jar, the rice had begun to FERMENT, clearly showing that organisms were growing and going to work on the rice in a way that would not have been dangerous for human consumption. The other two jars, on the other hand, had organisms growing that were clearly toxic.
The positive jar was ANYTHING but stagnant.
Dan Winter might say something like this:
“Something is alive to the extend that it attracts charge. The vital life force that is being attracted helps all fruits and vegetables grow, but once a veggie is picked, it will slowly begin to undergo decay until it is eventually rotten. It appears that positive words and thought-forms have a life-force prolonging effect upon that which the thought-form is directed upon. This is one of the many ways that life-force can be prolonged in organic materials. It is not unnatural, nor it is stagnant—it is simply attracting more Chi/Shakti/Orgone/Life-force and thus is sustaining itself longer. This very same principle can be applied to the fruits and vegetables in our fridge, and most certainly could allow them to stay fresher, longer!”
Of course Dan Winter focuses more on the nature of fractality and how certain geometric structures help to attract charge. He also delves into new paradigm physics principles to explain how, for example, seeds that are grown within electromagnetic energy fields, such as stonehenge, actually grow better! It’s quite fascinating. No need to think of it as something that should be kept out of your garden. Actually, your plants may be happier!
I’m not agreeing nor disagreeing with Dan winter, as i know nothing about him. But it’s not relevant to this experiment. This argument would make sense if Emoto was using a live plant, or even living rice grains. But this is cooked rice, there is no life force in it. He killed the seed by boiling it. The only life energy potential it has now is either being decomposed by other living organisms, turned into compost, to be used again by a living plant, or being eaten by us. To think of this jar of cooked rice as a plant is equal to saying a fried chicken wing is an animal. If the chicken wing didn’t decompose in this experiment would not mean we were extending the life force of the chicken.
This belies a dangerous human-centred ideology – well intentioned of course, but dangerous because it equates anything as ‘good for humans’ as being universally good. Even in Dan Winters example, he says a picked vegetable will eventually just ‘rot’, which is supposedly bad because then we humans can’t eat it, but it’s also misleading, because the rotting triggers the seeds to sprout and provides the decomposed nutrition they need to grow, which is exactly what the plant wants. We delude ourselves into believing that the function we get out of the vegetable as food is its only possible function, even to the point where we tell ourselves that the vegetable wants to be eaten by us, it is growing for us! Imagine saying the same thing about a lamb?
Emoto’s experiment only really shows that we can influence experiments to get the outcome that we want. Period. We are not saying ‘i love you’ to the rice, we are saying it to our desire to eat the rice. It is equating our desire for something with the actual thing itself that i find very dangerous, because it means our desires can never be harmful. Whatever serves human desire is good, whatever doesn’t is bad.
you are being intentionally obtuse. you might choose to take a wider view on the implications of the experiment. such as … saying ‘i love you’ to anything sends out a supportive energy, while saying ‘you fool’ or a similarly derogatory thought sends out destructive energy. this has nothing to do with rice, plants, humans, long life, bacteria, mold, frogs, jello, compost, ding-dongs, car keys etc. it transcends all of these things.
There are to many variables in this “experiment” to make it valid. Moreover, was it replicable? Where were the beakers placed? What type of rice was used? Where was the water from? What if the rice was spoken to in other languages? Moreover, why is rotting bad and fermenting good? This is not science!
While u make a valid point. I think it doesn’t matter what water or rice was used. Or where jars were placed. A) as long as it was one batch of rice cooked in same pot of water. And jars were all stored in same place.. B) It Is also simple enough to do yourself and see the results you get. As an experiment it is interesting results however you choose to translate those results
The actual language wouldn’t matter as language is a vocalization of an idea or feeling. We all have more or less the same feelings and ideas, at least as far as what we’re concerned with here.
why is rotting bad? lmaaoo...
I wonder if you had a person who thinks of rotting as good and not rotting as bad then the results would switch. Is this test about intention or about positive and negative energy. It’s hard to explain so I hope you know what I mean lol
Were the jars airtight? You Fool might have produced a more forceful air movement where I Love You might have been more softly spoken. Try it again, but saying I love you loudly and forcefully while merely whispering you fool. I bet there will be a different result. I think it’s an experiment in bacteria and air movement.
:13 into the first video, you can see that the boiling water did not fully cover the rice in the second and third jars. So of course, lingering bacteria in those jars was not killed–the rice was not