Is there really any truth to "Earthing"?

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Sparky
Posts: 3517
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:20 pm

Re: Is there really any truth to "Earthing"?

Unread post by Sparky » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:53 am

Barefoot contact with the sacred pyramid stones electrically excites the perpetual nuclear fusion and fission reactions taking place between gases and metals in the bloodstream, releasing soft photons in the visible spectrum that constitute the human light body or rainbow body.
http://www.human-resonance.org/qi.html

Linked from, http://www.human-resonance.org/quantum_trapping2.html , which explains the fusion process.
The renewed holistic view of all living organisms as biological nuclear reactors -that resonant nuclear transmutations are safely occurring all around us and within us in every moment of our existence- shows modern scientific feats of 'atom smashing' to be entirely unnecessary for inducing nuclear transmutation.
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong."
"Doubt is not an agreeable condition, but certainty is an absurd one."
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Is there really any truth to "Earthing"?

Unread post by GaryN » Thu Mar 28, 2013 4:21 pm

Are Nuclear Processes in Biology Unique?
Since the published work of Louis Kervran in France in 1960, there has been serious debate as to whether nuclear reactions occur at normal body temperatures in organisms. Kervran reported what he claimed to be many instances. In none of these cases was there any indication of radioactivity or notice able heat production, and the element formed in the proposed reaction was always stable.
(pdf) http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/A ... iology.pdf
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests