Floral Signs Go Electric: Bumblebees Find and Distinguish Electric Signals from Flowers

reply to post by Bedlam

First, you'd have to exactly define 'balance', and that'll take a few centuries...

Well, with all due respect, 'balance' has been defined for millennia....
The planet on which we live is perfect; it provides us everything we need. Humans are marvelous in their capacity to make machines that do our labor. We are extraordinary in our ability to harness the forces we can grasp.

In fact, the more I learn about the recent scientific research, the more I think we are screwing things up.....

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by rickymouse
That is interesting S&F. So the bees can sense the field of the flowers. A smell is actually a vibration of energy that is governed by the metals and chemicals it contains. Every plant takes in a unique set of minerals to form it's shape and color. I never realized that smell was actually an energy signature till reading this. What smelling really is is not really explained well. I'm going to study this more.

Smells aren't energy signatures, they're chemicals. A smell isn't a vibration of energy. It's a shape.

I just researched this just now and the theory that this guy portrays and his evidence does make a lot of sense. Sensing shapes to me seems to be an inferior theory. Here's an article. en.wikipedia.org...

The shape of a molecule is going to cause a vibration signature, that is already a proven fact of science. This article is saying that energy of a certain vibrational frequency is actually detected. I think he is more right than present consensus.

reply to post by rickymouse


Even this guy admits it's shapes as well, he's trying to bring in a secondary factor, which so far is more than a bit ambiguous.

But a qm resonance frequency isn't a new age 'vibration'. It's straight physics.

This is the slime link

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for the luminous worms, i counted 6 in my backyard and have never seen them before. And its a bit cold out there. But the bees are much more vital to this planet and anything that could harm them is crucial. Sorry, didnt mean to take away from your focus here.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Bedlam

 

First, you'd have to exactly define 'balance', and that'll take a few centuries...

Well, with all due respect, 'balance' has been defined for millennia....
The planet on which we live is perfect; it provides us everything we need. Humans are marvelous in their capacity to make machines that do our labor. We are extraordinary in our ability to harness the forces we can grasp.

In fact, the more I learn about the recent scientific research, the more I think we are screwing things up.....

I'd have to disagree with you, or your definition of 'balance' is quite quite shallow. Balance in what, for instance. Between what? What defines the balance? Around what norms does the balance oscillate? Now, extrapolate towards infinity for all the things that may or may not be 'balanced', both in micro and macro systems.

The planet on which we live is far far from perfect. It's been many things over time. Those things it used to be are now gone. Where is that balance? Is the current state better? Would anaerobic organisms agree?

I don't ascribe to Rousseau-lite. The planet is what it is. No perfect nature, no noble savages, no Gaia.

I do encourage you to actually learn about science, though.

reply to post by Speckle

didnt mean to take away from your focus here.

No! Nononono......
I want to learn, is all. And to do what I can to save our planet and all of its inhabitants from annihilation! Thanks for chiming in!

reply to post by Bedlam

your definition of 'balance' is quite quite shallow. Balance in what, for instance. Between what? What defines the balance? Around what norms does the balance oscillate?

We are here, and have what we need to survive (complements - or compliments? - of the planet)

Now, extrapolate towards infinity for all the things that may or may not be 'balanced', both in micro and macro systems.

Yes, nano and quantum and supernovae and black holes and the entire elegant universe. You are saying it isn't balanced all by itself?

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Bedlam

 

We are here, and have what we need to survive (complements of the planet)

Sounds more like we evolved here than some sort of mystic balance that somehow provides for us. Which implies provider, and intent to provide, etc. It's a lot more random and undirected, IMHO.

Yes, nano and quantum and supernovae and black holes and the entire elegant universe. You are saying it isn't balanced all by itself?

I'm saying even beginning to understand what that balance IS, if it exists, is a monumental task.

reply to post by Bedlam

Sounds more like we evolved here than some sort of mystic balance that somehow provides for us.

Of course we evolved here!!
But, the 'balance' isn't "mystic" at all?
It's the product of that evolution of life, and the physics of the planet on which we live.
We don't understand how all of it works, and, in my opinion, we should proceed with caution in altering the balance that the earth provides.

If bees need stimuli that we don't, that doesn't make them 'stupid' or 'shallow.' We don't KNOW how bees work, or birds, or the entire planet's cycles....
gha.
Okay, Bedlam, I'm willing and semi-able to discuss these things with you, and welcome the opportunity. Nevertheless, I read science news every day, and I also marvel at what I see around me.

Edit to add:

I'm saying even beginning to understand what that balance IS, if it exists, is a monumental task.

Yes, without doubt...
I don't dispute that at all.

reply to post by Bedlam


If it was shape, then a smell from the same bottle of cologne would smell the same to us no matter when it was smelled. This is not the case. It can smell good one day and then in a week it can smell terrible so we don't wear it. Our personal chemistry controls our vibration level in the body. Changing our vibration or energy level would mean that our recognition of the smell would change. You are changing the point of perspective or center point. It is a matter of how the smell is transformed to energy.

I will not immediately believe what others say is real just because others believe it. Just because I chose not to become a physicist or doctor, even though I would have easily qualified to be in any field I wanted to, doesn't mean I have to accept what others tell me if there is evidence and reasoning to contradict it. You are very welcome to believe everything others tell you is true if you want, I would rather consider things that make more sense. I have seen so much misapplied evidence in my life that I can't do that.

Originally posted by wildtimes
It's the product of that evolution of life, and the physics of the planet on which we live.

That I agree with - no mother earth, or intent. Just evolution - we're here and it 'provides our needs' because our needs evolved from what was here.

If bees need stimuli that we don't, that doesn't make them 'stupid' or 'shallow.' We don't KNOW how bees work, or birds, or the entire planet's cycles....

But we do know that static electric fields from flowers bear little to no relationship to a radio wave.

Nevertheless, I read science news every day, and I also marvel at what I see around me.

I do too, I just try to refrain from giant unsubstantiated leaps of the form flowers make electric fields->therefore->wifi signals kill bees. Given no basis for which to say such a thing, one might also say painting houses white kills bees. Or driving on the right side of the road. They'd all be as logical.

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Bedlam

 

If it was shape, then a smell from the same bottle of cologne would smell the same to us no matter when it was smelled. This is not the case. It can smell good one day and then in a week it can smell terrible so we don't wear it. Our personal chemistry controls our vibration level in the body. Changing our vibration or energy level would mean that our recognition of the smell would change. You are changing the point of perspective or center point. It is a matter of how the smell is transformed to energy.

See, this is what I knew you were going to say. However, QM resonances such as your fellow of the resonant smells are actual physics, whereas 'changing the vibration level' is New Age woo. That, of course, is why theosophy adopted physics terms, so that they could try to seem 'sciency' and not 'occult'.

When you read 'vibration' in that article, it's got to do with bond angles and nuclear mass, not 'vibrations' as in good or bad. The two terms seem the same, but are not related.

reply to post by Bedlam

But we do know that static electric fields from flowers bear little to no relationship to a radio wave.

Okay, Bedlam. I started the thread to bring attention to the electric aspects of bees and flowers. I don't want to argue (nor am I equipped to do so) about electric v radio frequencies.

I think you've been distracted by the mention of the video. ... and obviously you disagree with the premise of the video. I would really rather just stick to the new awareness of how bees and flowers 'communicate'.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Bedlam

 

If it was shape, then a smell from the same bottle of cologne would smell the same to us no matter when it was smelled. This is not the case. It can smell good one day and then in a week it can smell terrible so we don't wear it. Our personal chemistry controls our vibration level in the body. Changing our vibration or energy level would mean that our recognition of the smell would change. You are changing the point of perspective or center point. It is a matter of how the smell is transformed to energy.

See, this is what I knew you were going to say. However, QM resonances such as your fellow of the resonant smells are actual physics, whereas 'changing the vibration level' is New Age woo. That, of course, is why theosophy adopted physics terms, so that they could try to seem 'sciency' and not 'occult'.

When you read 'vibration' in that article, it's got to do with bond angles and nuclear mass, not 'vibrations' as in good or bad. The two terms seem the same, but are not related.

Well, I may have the wrong terminology because I tend to translate all the research articles into common language that I have used since I was a kid. The language I can converse with my friends and relatives with. I have no need to know all the words of the sciences when there is a word that others of my kind can understand. I hate talking over others heads, people avoid you when you do that. I would rather translate the words. I do not want to memorize words I do not use unless there is no way to translate them. This just ties up brain cells that can be used better for reasoning.

I have to learn a lot of biological science and medical words because that is where my important studies are.

Vibration sounds like something I can get my friends to understand. Most of my friends know about farming and working. Most of them memorize the names of taverns and social events. I'm not going to switch friends, but many are starting to get sick and die, I decided to return to studying medicine from a cure and avoid angle instead of treatments of symptoms.

I've probably read over fifty thousand research articles and journal entries over the last ten years. I'm not going to start learning the languages of every single science. I'm concentrating on building principles and assessing patterns. Knowing big words doesn't make a person intelligent, ability to reason and comprehend does.

Originally posted by rickymouse

I've probably read over fifty thousand research articles and journal entries over the last ten years. I'm not going to start learning the languages of every single science. I'm concentrating on building principles and assessing patterns. Knowing big words doesn't make a person intelligent, ability to reason and comprehend does.

Offhand, I'd guess you'd have gotten a lot more out of those articles if you'd understood the language they used, what they meant by the words. Otherwise, it's just confusing and misleading.

That's one of the many reasons theosophy/new age really gripes me - way back at the beginning there were two or three of the founders who decided it would be peachy to abscond all the science terms they could fit. So now we get 'vibrations', 'fields', 'energy', 'frequency' and what not used in very incorrect ways, and then people who don't know the difference try to fit them to physics. Only it's not the same thing, it's just the same word.

And it works! It confuses the crap out of people. So, I guess they did a good job.

But in this case, the quantum mechanical vibrations your guy was discussing are related to the motions of atoms in molecules. There are a number of these types of motions, and they're all quantifiable using math. Among them, you get things like spinning, rocking, scissoring and so on, maybe a dozen forms off hand. And the rate at which these occur (the 'QM vibration frequency') is determined by the bond length, the bond angle, the bond strength and the mass of the nearby nuclei making up the constituents of the molecule. These don't change. They don't get happy one day and "raise their frequency", or sad and "lower it". It's fixed, for a particular molecule. So fixed, you can identify what sort of molecule you've got by beaming some energy through it and looking for the qm resonance points, and looking it up in a table. That's called IR spectroscopy or microwave spectroscopy, because that's where most of the QM resonances end up. It's sort of like the pendulum of a clock - the rate of swing is set by the pendulum length and gravity. You can't make it speed up by making it happy. It is what it is.

Unfortunately, this old bat named Blavatsky in the 1870's decided 'vibration' was a neat word she could nab from physics, and used it to describe some half-arsed concept of 'goodness'. The "more good" something was, the "higher its vibrations were". You might note that you'll never run into anyone who can actually do something like MEASURE this, it's always something they KNOW. Which is another way that theosophy/new age differs from physics. But in truth, there are no vibrations going on in relation to 'good' or 'bad'. Certainly nothing you can relate to the physics concept.

reply to post by Bedlam

Offhand, I'd guess you'd have gotten a lot more out of those articles if you'd understood the language they used, what they meant by the words. Otherwise, it's just confusing and misleading.

My daughter has just completed her Master's degree in journalism, with a Bachelor's in Material Science Engineering. Her original intent was to be the "person who could explain to lay people what the science says, without the 'intellectual' prerequisites of scientific jargon/vocabulary required."

I appreciate ricky's sentiments - every aspect of study has its own "jargon" and "terminology" - but too much of their publicized works are "above the heads" of people who don't have that sort of intense training.

I see how it is feasible that "lay people" who don't understand the jargon can be misled, or form only "outsider" understanding....
so I feel that it's very important for science to be ACCESSIBLE. We aren't all scientists, but we are all capable of learning.

You've brought up some very good points in this thread, but to insist that "we" lay people cannot understand and are being duped by "pseudo-science" and "woo-woo" ideas is demoralizing and arrogant. So, can you please share with us, Bedlam, without coming across as having an "exclusive" expertise, how you see the EMF might be affecting the bees, birds, flora, etc., and what the ramifications might be if we disregard such "occurrences" as bee die-offs, etc simply because we don't know all the formal terms?

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by rickymouse

I've probably read over fifty thousand research articles and journal entries over the last ten years. I'm not going to start learning the languages of every single science. I'm concentrating on building principles and assessing patterns. Knowing big words doesn't make a person intelligent, ability to reason and comprehend does.

Offhand, I'd guess you'd have gotten a lot more out of those articles if you'd understood the language they used, what they meant by the words. Otherwise, it's just confusing and misleading.

That's one of the many reasons theosophy/new age really gripes me - way back at the beginning there were two or three of the founders who decided it would be peachy to abscond all the science terms they could fit. So now we get 'vibrations', 'fields', 'energy', 'frequency' and what not used in very incorrect ways, and then people who don't know the difference try to fit them to physics. Only it's not the same thing, it's just the same word.

And it works! It confuses the crap out of people. So, I guess they did a good job.

But in this case, the quantum mechanical vibrations your guy was discussing are related to the motions of atoms in molecules. There are a number of these types of motions, and they're all quantifiable using math. Among them, you get things like spinning, rocking, scissoring and so on, maybe a dozen forms off hand. And the rate at which these occur (the 'QM vibration frequency') is determined by the bond length, the bond angle, the bond strength and the mass of the nearby nuclei making up the constituents of the molecule. These don't change. They don't get happy one day and "raise their frequency", or sad and "lower it". It's fixed, for a particular molecule. So fixed, you can identify what sort of molecule you've got by beaming some energy through it and looking for the qm resonance points, and looking it up in a table. That's called IR spectroscopy or microwave spectroscopy, because that's where most of the QM resonances end up. It's sort of like the pendulum of a clock - the rate of swing is set by the pendulum length and gravity. You can't make it speed up by making it happy. It is what it is.

Unfortunately, this old bat named Blavatsky in the 1870's decided 'vibration' was a neat word she could nab from physics, and used it to describe some half-arsed concept of 'goodness'. The "more good" something was, the "higher its vibrations were". You might note that you'll never run into anyone who can actually do something like MEASURE this, it's always something they KNOW. Which is another way that theosophy/new age differs from physics. But in truth, there are no vibrations going on in relation to 'good' or 'bad'. Certainly nothing you can relate to the physics concept.

I understand the language of the articles I read very well, I have more of a problem translating them into laymans terms. I tested out of a year and a half of MTU during my first year of college, I could have finished a four year degree in less than two and a half years. I have no problems with the meanings, some of the terminology I haven't heard in thirty five years so I initially had to do some research to refresh my knowledge. I tested out of all the physics and all but one math at MTU. Just because I have been learning many professions because I get bored with something when I learn it well doesn't mean I am unintelligent. Now I'm back to doing what I do best, interpreting what I read and comparing it to other things I read and know.

I find that many people that throw out technical words do it as a defense to guard against others challenging them. I do not like to use this tactic, I research things till the cows come home so I can apply them to anything I want to in a proper way. I find that people who throw out these words often can't apply them to normal life, their knowledge is like a computer and computers can't think well unless the programming is there. This worries me because many of these people are in charge of things in our societies. I see a lot of this protection method used by teachers and scientists. My daughter tried this on me and I showed her that I was still smarter. I told her that an intelligent person should be able to understand a conversation where the wrong word was used based on the overall discussion. I spent a while catching her on misapplied words showing her that she does it more often than I do. I would have been disappointed if she didn't try to take control but I don't need someone controlling what I choose to study.

Like I said, you are welcome to blindly believe what others tell you if you want. I like to investigate things. I see you make quite a few mistakes but don't challenge you. Not yet anyway. I do not like to challenge others perceptions, I like to try to clarify it

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Offhand, I'd guess you'd have gotten a lot more out of those articles if you'd understood the language they used, what they meant by the words. Otherwise, it's just confusing and misleading.

My daughter has just complete her Master's degree in journalism, with a Bachelor's in Material Science Engineering. Her original intent was to be the "person who could explain to lay people what the science says, without the 'intellectual' prerequisites of scientific jargon/vocabulary required."

I appreciate ricky's sentiments - every aspect of study has its own "jargon" and "terminology" - but too much of their publicized works are "above the heads" of people who don't have that sort of intense training.

I see how it is feasible that "lay people" who don't understand the jargon can be misled, or form only "outsider" understanding....
so I feel that it's very important for science to be ACCESSIBLE. We aren't all scientists, but we are all capable of learning.

You've brought up some very good points in this thread, but to insist that "we" lay people cannot understand and are being duped by "pseudo-science" and "woo-woo" ideas is demoralizing and arrogant. So, can you please share with us, Bedlam, without coming across as having an "exclusive" expertise, how you see the EMF might be affecting the bees, birds, flora, etc., and what the ramifications might be if we disregard such "occurrences" as bee die-offs, etc simply because we don't know all the formal terms?

So true.

Originally posted by wildtimes

...so I feel that it's very important for science to be ACCESSIBLE. We aren't all scientists, but we are all capable of learning.

It is accessible. All you've got to do is apply yourself. If by accessible, you mean 'without any effort, easily', well, it's not going to happen any more than having a degree in tax law is 'accessible', or being a surgeon. It takes a lot of work. Now, there's a lot of it you could follow with some basics in science, but today's schools seem to deemphasize math and science for rounding the kiddies' psyches.

You've brought up some very good points in this thread, but to insist that "we" lay people cannot understand and are being duped by "pseudo-science" and "woo-woo" ideas is demoralizing and arrogant.

I'm quite sure you can learn it. Lots of people do. I thought long and hard on a nicer, all-inclusive way to say it, but I haven't been able to, theosophy/new age and that 'documentary' are as woo as it gets. Except for maybe "what the bleep do we know', that one tops the list.

So, can you please share with us, Bedlam, without coming across as having an "exclusive" expertise, how you see the EMF might be affecting the bees, birds, flora, etc., and what the ramifications might be if we disregard such "occurrences" as bee die-offs, etc simply because we don't know all the formal terms?

I don't see EMF affecting either bees, birds or flora. I'm not saying that there is no connection whatever, but I've never seen either a proper study showing it nor so much as a convincing argument as to how such a thing would be possible. I think the bee die-off is a combination of some sort of infectious stress, either viral or mites, combined with a new set of insecticides that perhaps weren't tested as well as they ought to have been. I don't see any evidence of excessive bird deaths.

Originally posted by rickymouse
Like I said, you are welcome to blindly believe what others tell you if you want. I like to investigate things. I see you make quite a few mistakes but don't challenge you. Not yet anyway. I do not like to challenge others perceptions, I like to try to clarify it

The beauty of science is, you can often do it yourself.

I can demonstrate IR resonances. Measure them. Show that what I measure matches what I ought to get for a particular compound.

You can't measure "vibrations" ala theosophy, because they don't exist.

I would consider 'blindly believing' to fall into that category, as that relates more to religion than science.