Video explaining the "DNA Phantom Effect"

The above video explains the relationship between emotional frequencies and our own bodies (DNA). Claiming that loving emotions create higher frequencies (as observed via "Cymatics") and that the emotion of fear creates lower frequencies. The wave lengths of these frequencies are then said to pass through our DNA. Since fear is a lower frequency, it would have less passes in our DNA and activate a lesser amount of "codons (genetic code)". However, the higher vibration of love would create more passes and activate more, causing a higher, healthier, and more "alive" form of body.

There currently exists an old, yet decent, thread on this subject: DNA Phantom effect (ATS Thread). More information can be gathered from there.

Tripe. Total, unambiguous, tripe.

What the guy on this video said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in his rambling, incoherent response was he even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award him no points, and may God have mercy on his soul.

edit to add:

Scathing post to follow.

reply to post by Bedlam


You're going to be in your egotistical bubble for a long time spending so much time using the left brain hemisphere. Ever hear about having balance in your life? When you discover the powers of the right brain, maybe then you'll understand metaphysical insight and the secrets of the universe.

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
The above video explains the relationship between emotional frequencies and our own bodies (DNA).

Woo

Claiming that loving emotions create higher frequencies and that the emotion of fear creates lower frequencies.

Woo

The wave lengths of these frequencies are then said to pass through our DNA.

Meaningless drivel

Since fear is a lower frequency, it would have less passes in our DNA and activate a lesser amount of codons.

Woo

However, the higher vibration of love would create more passes and activate more, causing a higher, healthier, and more "alive" form of body.

Double Woo

Originally posted by sgspecial19
You're going to be in your egotistical bubble for a long time spending so much time using the left brain hemisphere. Ever hear about having balance in your life? When you discover the powers of the right brain, maybe then you'll understand metaphysical insight and the secrets of the universe.

Balance is a good thing.

However, living in a fantasy world and making crap up is BAD. Very bad. Bad as in being the path to mental health problems.

Utter madness.

Originally posted by Bedlam
At no point in his rambling, incoherent response was he even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.

And at no point in your rambling, uninformative response did you site anything that could be considered reasonable information for disproving the statements in this video, but I guess your neck isn't on the line.

I will supply you with the basics for providing a quality response.

Firstly, while this is a board based on opinions, they are useless. I could make opinionated statements all day but they wouldn't provide any evidence for anything. Especially such hateful ones. (You are harming your DNA here. *smirk*)

Now that your opinion is out of the way, start by actually claiming what you believe is wrong with the information. For example: "I believe the poster above me's post was completely useless, and here is why:" Then I would simply follow through with information to support my claims, such as: "The poster above me exclaimed that 'the speaker in the video was not rational', yet two people talked in this video. How is that for rational?"

Also, don't just grasp at straws here. Provide a wealth of knowledge to support your claim. Not just something so entirely silly such as "Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to this". Of course, only a very very silly person would say something like that.

No, what we need is actual support.


So, why don't you go ahead and say what is so unreasonable about the video. Any specific claims? Otherwise, you and "BagBing" over there just sound like disinformationists. Although, I saw reference "God" in your post, so perhaps you are a close-minded religious person who can't accept scientific, metaphysical advancements?

Any way, I'm not necessarily defending the claims in this video as I have no clue how justifiable they are but what I am defending is quality of post. Quit being so useless. You too, BagBing.

reply to post by sgspecial19

You're going to be in your egotistical bubble for a long time spending so much time using the left brain hemisphere.

Just... stop talking. It's too painful to watch.

Ever hear about having balance in your life?

I tend to subscribe to a rational thought process that evaluates the products of my imagination.

When you discover the powers of the right brain, maybe then you'll understand metaphysical insight and the secrets of the universe.

You speak as though you have discovered these powers... and know the secrets of the universe (because it is supposed to be this super-secret thing - our existence). Rather than boasting to people, perhaps you'd like to share a secret or two with us.

I'm curious what such a young buck as yourself can show this ancient soul.

I will go ahead and share with you the most important "secret" of the universe. "I am." It is a simple, profound statement; the importance of which can only be grasped by a truly sentient being having pondered, to the fullest, the nature of one's own existence. That statement affirms the belief that one exists and that one has committed to interacting with the reality they experience.

It is not the power of the brain to contort reality into anything you so desire. It is the power of your mind to resolve what issues are important to the definition of your identity.

As for the whole right-brain/left-brain stuff:

scienceblogs.com...

www.positscience.com...

But more recently, brain scan technology has revealed that the hemispheres' roles are not quite so cut-and-dried as once thought. The two hemispheres are in fact highly complementary. For example, language processing, once believed to be left- hemisphere-only, is now understood to take place in both hemispheres: the left side processes grammar and pronunciation while the right processes intonation. Similarly, experiments have shown that the right hemisphere does not work in isolation with regard to spatial ability: the right hemisphere seems to deal with a general sense of space, while the left hemisphere deals with objects in specific locations.

www.spring.org.uk...

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, no?

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

Originally posted by Bedlam
At no point in his rambling, incoherent response was he even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.

And at no point in your rambling, uninformative response did you site anything that could be considered reasonable information for disproving the statements in this video, but I guess your neck isn't the line.

I will supply you with the basics for providing a quality response.

Here's you a video link that addresses the one you posted:

Firstly, while this is a board based on opinions, they are useless. I could make opinionated statements all day but they wouldn't provide any evidence for anything. Especially such hateful ones. (You are harming your DNA here. *smirk*)

Now that your opinion is out of the way, start by actually claiming what you believe is wrong with the information.

Welcome to Science and Tech, where you may be somewhat more freely questioned on the scientific basis of your posting than on, say, metaphysics, which is actually where this topic belongs.

For example: "I believe the poster above me's post was completely useless, and here is why:" Then I would simply follow through with information to support my claims, such as: "The poster above me exclaimed that 'the speaker in the video was not rational', yet two people talked in this video. How is that for rational?"

Ok. Here's your first dose of rationality, which you will not be able to slip by, and which will shatter the video's claims and your possible belief in it, in three easy words: frequency of what?

So, why don't you go ahead and say what is so unreasonable about the video. Any specific claims? Otherwise, you and "BagBing" over there just sound like disinformationists.

Some topics lend themselves to ridicule. This would be one. I'm not aiming it at you, it's more the entire meta-woo DNA thing that I find amusing.

Although, I saw reference "God" in your post, so perhaps you are a close-minded religious person who can't accept scientific, metaphysical advancements?

Science and metaphysics are things that go together like ice cream and raw oysters. Raw oyster blizzard, anyone?

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

So, why don't you go ahead and say what is so unreasonable about the video. Any specific claims?

Try all of the above.

The DNA Phantom Effect is, for lack of a better phrase... complete and total bull#.

www.skepticforum.com...

www.thescienceforum.com...

You see literally no mention of it outside of discussion forums that all come to, generally, the same conclusion:

Quoted Post by maccu: "I think I may be able to shed some light on what was behind these studies. As near as I can make out, these studies were published in Russia in 1992. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Most likely, these "studies" were started while the USSR still existed. The USSR funded a lot of pseudo-science projects. As long as the scientists involved delivered results that supported ideologies of the party, they would continue to be funded, and possibly result in becoming party members bringing with it advantages. The Party didn't really care if it was true, just that it supported their ideologies.

This held back the USSR in a number of research fields, including genetics. The most famous example of this was the pursuit of a form of Lamarckism, the idea that characteristics developed during life could be passed on genetically. But more broadly this effect of political ideologies driving research was called Lysenkoism. You can read more about it here...
en.wikipedia.org...

So when you see Soviet research that makes wild claims like lasers creating quantum wormholes around DNA which permanently modify it, or emotional vibrations being able to modify live DNA, it's probably safe to assume it was horse# made up by a Soviet scientist desperately trying stay employed and hoping to get a nicer apartment to live in."

Originally posted by Bedlam
Ok. Here's your first dose of rationality, which you will not be able to slip by, and which will shatter the video's claims and your possible belief in it, in three easy words: frequency of what?

Really? Frequency of vibrations.

All particles in the Universe have kinetic and potential energy. (Vibrational) Mass-energy equvalence (E=mc^2)

Emotions create a physiological reaction in the body.

This reaction is a result of your emotions changing the vibration in your body.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


I see this sort of thing a lot in metaphysics or less-grounded 'science' forums. They talk about "frequency" this and "vibration" that, and it's got nothing to do with science. Then having made some statement like "love has a higher frequency" or some other bilge, they try to tie it into something at least partially science based, based on the word's usage in physics.

That's a particularly heinous bit of crap reasoning that was, as far as I can tell, started by Theosophists in the late 19th century in order to try to arrogate some of the 'gee whiz' futurism that the hard sciences were starting to churn out at the time. The papers were full of glowing predictions of where that new-fangled electric power and that telephone thing were going to lead the country. Enter Madame Blavatsky. Since people were intrigued by such things, why not name some of her 'occult' and 'esoteric' metaphysics terms using those of the day? Thus do you get "vibration" and "frequency" tied into metaphysics.

At any rate, the term "frequency" is an attribute, not a tangible. You can't have a cup of frequency any more than you can have a cup of blue. Frequency means the number of times something occurs in a unit of time. Nothing more. If a dog barks three times a minute, he's got a bark frequency of 3 barks/minute. If you blink 6 times per minute, you've got a blink frequency of 6 blinks/minute. Love is an emotion. It has no frequency, other than possibly the number of times you fall in love per lifetime or something. but there's no "frequency" in the sense that you're trying to use it. It doesn't have a vibration. It isn't "higher" or "lower". I can't hook an oscilloscope to you and measure the loves/second.

DNA is cool enough by itself, as it actually works, without trying to ring in a lot of metaphysical woo. The structure at a coding level almost looks contrived. Whodathunk that nature would provide preamble sections that are structured almost like little file headers? What a great idea that codons that tend to have undetectable errors code for the same amino acid, so that if you DO get an error, it will still work right? Wow! No need for metaphysics, it's impressive as is.

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

Really? Frequency of vibrations.

What's vibrating? Why?

All particles in the Universe have kinetic and potential energy. (Vibrational) Mass-energy equvalence (E=mc^2)

The mass-energy equivalence hasn't anything to do with vibrations. Kinetic energy isn't a vibration, although vibration can have kinetic energy. Potential energy has nothing to do with vibration.

Emotions create a physiological reaction in the body.

True

This reaction is a result of your emotions changing the vibration in your body.

False. It's an endocrine function, generally.

Neuroscience Letters

Volume 513, Issue 2, 4 April 2012, Pages 151–154

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030439401200208X
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.02.021

Increased photon emission from the head while imagining light in the dark is correlated with changes in electroencephalographic power: Support for Bókkon's biophoton hypothesis

# B.T. Dotta a, c,
# K.S. Saroka a, b,
# M.A. Persinger a

* a Behavioural Neuroscience Program, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada P3E 2C6
* b Human Studies Program, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada P3E 2C6
* c Biomolecular Sciences Program, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada P3E 2C6

* Received 3 January 2012. Revised 31 January 2012. Accepted 8 February 2012. Available online 17 February 2012.

Abstract

Bókkon's hypothesis that photons released from chemical processes within the brain produce biophysical pictures during visual imagery has been supported experimentally. In the present study measurements by a photomultiplier tube also demonstrated significant increases in ultraweak photon emissions (UPEs) or biophotons equivalent to about 5 × 10−11 W/m2 from the right sides of volunteer's heads when they imagined light in a very dark environment compared to when they did not. Simultaneous variations in regional quantitative electroencephalographic spectral power (μV2/Hz) and total energy in the range of ∼10−12 J from concurrent biophoton emissions were strongly correlated (r = 0.95). The calculated energy was equivalent to that associated with action potentials from about 107 cerebral cortical neurons. We suggest these results support Bókkon's hypothesis that specific visual imagery is strongly correlated with ultraweak photon emission coupled to brain activity.
Highlights

► Cerebral photon emission increases with imagery. ► EEG power time-coupled to cerebral photon emissions. ► Power densities of EEG and brain photons match. ► Thinking is coupled to cerebral light emission. ► Imagery photon density increase is ∼10–11 W/m2.

Keywords

* Biophotons;
* Ultraweak photon emissions (UPEs);
* Bókkon's biophoton hypothesis;
* Cerebral hemispheres;
* Imagination;
* Human brain;
* Quantitative EEG (QEEG) visualization

Originally posted by xecoybh

Neuroscience Letters

Volume 513, Issue 2, 4 April 2012, Pages 151–154

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030439401200208X
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2012.02.021

Increased photon emission from the head while imagining light in the dark is correlated with changes in electroencephalographic power: Support for Bókkon's biophoton hypothesis

# B.T. Dotta a, c,
# K.S. Saroka a, b,
# M.A. Persinger a

* a Behavioural Neuroscience Program, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada P3E 2C6
* b Human Studies Program, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada P3E 2C6
* c Biomolecular Sciences Program, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada P3E 2C6

* Received 3 January 2012. Revised 31 January 2012. Accepted 8 February 2012. Available online 17 February 2012.

Abstract

Bókkon's hypothesis that photons released from chemical processes within the brain produce biophysical pictures during visual imagery has been supported experimentally. In the present study measurements by a photomultiplier tube also demonstrated significant increases in ultraweak photon emissions (UPEs) or biophotons equivalent to about 5 × 10−11 W/m2 from the right sides of volunteer's heads when they imagined light in a very dark environment compared to when they did not. Simultaneous variations in regional quantitative electroencephalographic spectral power (μV2/Hz) and total energy in the range of ∼10−12 J from concurrent biophoton emissions were strongly correlated (r = 0.95). The calculated energy was equivalent to that associated with action potentials from about 107 cerebral cortical neurons. We suggest these results support Bókkon's hypothesis that specific visual imagery is strongly correlated with ultraweak photon emission coupled to brain activity.
Highlights

► Cerebral photon emission increases with imagery. ► EEG power time-coupled to cerebral photon emissions. ► Power densities of EEG and brain photons match. ► Thinking is coupled to cerebral light emission. ► Imagery photon density increase is ∼10–11 W/m2.

Keywords

* Biophotons;
* Ultraweak photon emissions (UPEs);
* Bókkon's biophoton hypothesis;
* Cerebral hemispheres;
* Imagination;
* Human brain;
* Quantitative EEG (QEEG) visualization

Your point being?

Originally posted by BagBing
Your point being?

Don't you love the random external quotes?

Anyway, if the photon emission is ultraweak, they may not be measuring anything more than increased metabolism on that side of the brain. If their "biophoton emission" correlates to fMRI activity levels, it's meaningless.

Didn't go read the paper since I don't have free SD access here for full text, but one has to wonder if they had double blind control groups with the lab assistants having the test subjects vividly imagining patting a dog in the dark or hearing a favorite song in their head at full volume. I can't imagine the confounders associated with something that mushy, scientifically.

Not that it has anything to do with this topic.

edit to add: it seems like one of those Cartesian homunculi arguments - if you're generating a literal image in someone's head, who's doing the watching?

Originally posted by Bedlam
At any rate, the term "frequency" is an attribute, not a tangible. You can't have a cup of frequency any more than you can have a cup of blue. Frequency means the number of times something occurs in a unit of time. Nothing more. If a dog barks three times a minute, he's got a bark frequency of 3 barks/minute. If you blink 6 times per minute, you've got a blink frequency of 6 blinks/minute. Love is an emotion. It has no frequency, other than possibly the number of times you fall in love per lifetime or something. but there's no "frequency" in the sense that you're trying to use it. It doesn't have a vibration. It isn't "higher" or "lower". I can't hook an oscilloscope to you and measure the loves/second.

Yes, it is quite saddening how the "New-Age" group have destroyed usages of words such as: frequencies, vibrations, and "light-related" words. So much so that you can't seem to separate the idea of them from absurdities. Also, thank you for the science lesson. So, now with my "newly possessed" knowledge on frequencies, I will try and express what I meant earlier to you in an understandable fashion.

Since we have E=mc^2, we can conclude that the Universe is energy. Our bodies are made up of atoms which contain this energy and thusly they vibrate at certain frequencies. Emotions affect our body. So, in conclusion, it can be said that "emotions change the frequency at which the atoms in our body vibrate".

reply to post by BagBing


Can you produce a critique of actual substance? There are few skeptical arguments less convincing than those which reduce the level of discussion to how mentally ill or stupid you think your opponent is. Mockery may tickle a skeptic's ego, but it doesn't really advance rational discourse in any appreciable way. A good skeptical argument should be inquisitive, objective, reasonable and should not rely on baiting an emotional response from the proponent. I know skepticism can produce better arguments than this, I'm hoping you can too.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


Uh....

Energy doesn't necessarily have to have a frequency. What is the frequency of the electrical power in a battery?

Frequency is a measurement of cyclic changes in the amount of energy being delivered to a certain area (since voltage potential cannot be measured without a closed circuit, and some current must leak for the measurement to take place, power must still be delivered locally in order to attain a measurement).

Now, you could be referring to one of the earliest principles of Quantum Mechanics with the concept of resonant cavities. It was the problem of resonant cavities that led to the development of quantum mechanics (the idea that energy could only be emitted in packets of a certain quantifiable size), led to the development of the Planck Scale - and set the stage for nuclear physics, semiconductor electronics, etc.

In that sense - yes, everything has 'several' resonant frequencies that can be probed by various measurements.

I'm not saying you're completely wrong, here - I am of the opinion that we will, one day, be able to manipulate energy to the point that we have macro-scale particles (think of segment of hull plating that -is- a particle) and have very efficient energy-to-matter conversion systems based around spherical arrays of EM emitters (at what wavelengths, I don't really know). Sounds a little out-there - and some of my "dreams" may just be pipe dreams. But I think we will eventually see that.

That said... trying to say that our emotions have a discernible impact on this is just silly. There is more evidence that the human mind projects a measure of control upon "quantum chaos" - thereby shaping the universe by "loading the dice" - in a manner of speaking.

And that research is, understandably, highly controversial.... but at least it's well published and documented.

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
Yes, it is quite saddening how the "New-Age" group have destroyed usages of words such as: frequencies, vibrations, and "light-related" words. So much so that you can't seem to separate the idea of them from absurdities.

If by "light related" you mean regarding EM emission, that's one thing. New Agers also use it to mean "nice". That's the sort of thing I'm describing, and it does tend to confuse things. Especially when New Agers try to conflate their 'alternate' uses for physics terms with the real thing.

Since we have E=mc^2, we can conclude that the Universe is energy.

You can appropriately conclude that if the matter in the universe were converted to energy, you could accurately calculate the amount of energy released, if you knew the mass. Also supposing that there aren't any other processes going on during such an energetic event that you weren't counting on.

Matter is energy the way a dollar is pennies. If I exchange the dollar for pennies, then it's 100 pennies to the buck. However, I can't squeeze the dollar, or cut it up and shake it, and have pennies fall out. Until I convert it, the pennies are virtual. Similarly, I can have a piece of matter and it has an energy equivalence (thus the term - you used it yourself the first time you quoted it at me) expressed by that equation. It is not, however, energy.

Our bodies are made up of atoms which contain this energy and thusly they vibrate at certain frequencies. Emotions affect our body. So, in conclusion, it can be said that "emotions change the frequency at which the atoms in our body vibrate".

Two or three cataclysmic leaps of logic which are false, and related to your attempt at New Age/physics syncretion. Yes, your body is made up of atoms. Atoms do not 'contain energy' but they have an energy equivalence. Some atoms will spontaneously exchange mass for energy due to being metastable, these we call 'radioactive isotopes'. However, most atoms in your body don't do that very often.

Any matter above absolute zero has molecular motion. This is related to heat. As such, any matter that contains thermal energy will vibrate. This tends to be in terms of qm mechanical movements - scissoring, rocking, spinning and whatnot, or in lattice energy if it's crystalline, in which case it'll be phonons. This is the sort of thing you capitalize on when you do IR spectroscopy.

This hasn't got squat to do with emotions, just degrees Kelvin and molecular structure. In this definition, the physics one, vibration means repetitive, cyclic motion due to an energy input. Energy means "the capacity to do work". Neither has anything to do with the New Age definition of energy, vibration or frequency, if you can even get a clear one, they seem to be a bit fluid.

Emotions cause mental state changes, and endocrine ones, and these are macroscale phenomena,but they don't cause "vibrations" nor do they affect the molecular state of matter. I suppose one could make the weak argument that they raise the body temperature a bit in some cases, so lifting weights or becoming excited would "give you a higher frequency", although that's not strictly true. Your blackbody radiation due to body temp isn't one frequency but a smear, although your peak intensity wavelength could be calculated by Wien's displacement law.

In that case, though, one could get the same "love" out of a bar of steel with a heater.

reply to post by Aim64C


Energy may not, but atoms do and atoms are made up of energies. Then mostly everything physical is made up of atoms.