…and this is a 
You all laughed at this video of Charlene Werner explaining the physics of homeopathy.
But did you know that videos like this, where kooks are caught in the act, are endangered? It turns out that kooks don't like it when their words are made public, especially when those words are so loony that they invite universal derision. The person who put that video on youtube has been sent an odd letter:
Dr Charlene Werner
I thought you would like to know that you will be contacted by Dr Werner's Attorney shortly regarding her video. The posting of this video is in violation of copyright laws. We are aware that you have had this video up since March of '08 however I suggest you delete it immediately.
Jayson Patrick
(This was sent to XanSimpson, not Charlene Werner, so the salutation is a bit confusing.)
Anyway, XanSimpson wants to know what to do. As is common practice in these cases, the answer is obvious: everyone who can should make a copy of the video. More people should link to it. Spread the word and share the information — let her threat of a takedown lead to greater dissemination of her words.
Welcome to the internet, Charlene.
Comments
Posted by: Lars
|
November 5, 2009 8:09 AM
The Streisand effect's gotta do what the Streisand effect's gotta do.
Posted by: Cheb Ghobbi | November 5, 2009 8:10 AM
I wonder if this falls under fair use, given that it effectively satirises itself...
Posted by: Anon | November 5, 2009 8:11 AM
It certainly falls under "comedy".
Posted by: Erik | November 5, 2009 8:12 AM
I agree, welcome to the internetz Charlene :)
Posted by: The Science Pundit | November 5, 2009 8:13 AM
Yes, mass video-MIRROR campaigns are the best way to combat these kind of strongarm tactics. It's worked in the past to get Thundef00t, PatCondell, etc. videos reinstated.
Posted by: Dr. Steven Hawkings 386sx Jr. | November 5, 2009 8:15 AM
It is not humanly possible to destroy energy, therefore we must transform it!! If only we knew how to destroy energy!!
Posted by: Cheb Ghobbi | November 5, 2009 8:16 AM
Did the letter come from someone connected to Werner, or from YouTube? I at first thought it must be from her lawyer but then noticed that it states Xan will shortly be contacted by said bloodsucker.
Let's see it up on Thunderf00t's page - that'll get this issue some attention. Will add it to my (pretty much invisible) YouTube account tonight.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 5, 2009 8:19 AM
Don't worry its still on their "wellness" site. http://www.healingtheeye.com/sep2007.html#werner_talk
along with dvd offers for all your woo needs.
Posted by: Cheb Ghobbi | November 5, 2009 8:20 AM
I'll tell you what makes me sad - the amount of comments on that page from muppets who think Xan agrees with the content of the video. It's obvious from the blurb that it's to be laughed at.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 5, 2009 8:22 AM
This is certain to make Charlene very mad, almost as mad as when her neighbor's dog pooped in her yard. I'm sure she'll whip up a homeopathic bomb to lob at us for this.
Posted by: littlejohn | November 5, 2009 8:26 AM
aratina cage, I'll gladly offer instructions on building a homeopathic bomb. First, fill a balloon with water...
Posted by: Ray Moscow
|
November 5, 2009 8:27 AM
The real question is whether this mirroring leads to an increase in misinformation.
Dembski would say "no". An increase in misinformation requires an Unintelligent Designer.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 5, 2009 8:28 AM
Oh no, a homeopathic bomb? How does she make that? Show it a Mythbusters episode where they use C-4? A picture of Alfred Nobel?
Posted by: rlrr | November 5, 2009 8:29 AM
It is not humanly possible to destroy energy, therefore we must transform it!! If only we knew how to destroy energy!!
I wonder if she learned that from Stephen Hawkings...
Posted by: Sigmund | November 5, 2009 8:30 AM
Doesn't she realize that trying to delete it is simply a form of diluting the message?
We all know that diluting things only makes them more powerful. Clearly the best way to remove the effect of this video is to do the exact opposite! She should be encouraging the concentration of more and more copies of this on Youtube until its rendered powerless!
Posted by: Tim_Danaher
|
November 5, 2009 8:35 AM
I love the bit at the beginning where she conflates mass with volume showing how you can 'cross out' the 'm' from E=mc2.
What a cock.
I bet the 'Stephen Hawkings' (sic) is thrilled to know that he came up with string theory.
Posted by: uppity cracka | November 5, 2009 8:38 AM
haha! "copyright laws"
the guy who knows the attorney who knows the doctor sure knows how to threaten the interwebs.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 5, 2009 8:38 AM
She has a video made and then objects to its dissemination. Her thought processes must be as diluted as her homeopathic remedies.
Posted by: martijn | November 5, 2009 8:40 AM
here is my upload :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd64lbDPack
if any one wants to know I used save2pc for this.
Posted by: Michelle R | November 5, 2009 8:43 AM
Oh it's ON.
Hahaha... Welcome to the internet, biatches.
Posted by: zachary2142 | November 5, 2009 8:59 AM
I uploaded the video too. Here's a link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nl4whN9aLMg
Posted by: BigHeathenMike | November 5, 2009 9:01 AM
Reposted at my site here for all to see and, with any luck, weep.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 5, 2009 9:01 AM
The instructions for how to make a homeopathic bomb have me rolling. Thanks littlejohn and Nerd of Redhead (can't wait to use that on homeopath believers I know). Maybe we could start a new line of photon-glazed homeopathic remedies — water plus the essence of the image of other homeopathic remedies makes for the strongest
delusionsdilutions and thus most powerful homeopathic medicines EVAH!Also, I think Sigmund #15 wins for providing critical and irrefutable homeopathic logic that should be taken seriously by Charlene. It really might work out better for Charlene to try and push the video because it would be met with stiff anti-kook rejection instead of this newfound demand.
Posted by: ProudMonkey | November 5, 2009 9:03 AM
Wow, fancy math!
E = mc2
as m -> 0
E -> c2
My homely math training recovers
0 * x = 0.
Man, I knew I should have taken more math.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 5, 2009 9:10 AM
Unless this diatribe was given in a private function or it is part of something sold for profit then the material falls under fair use.
I swear, it's like no lawyer has ever read the DMCA. It's like they universally got ostrich syndrome and try to ignore it so they can try to go by the old rules where saying they'll contact a lawyer is intimidation anymore.
Posted by: zayzayem | November 5, 2009 9:13 AM
If the video wasn't made by Xan, then they are probably breaking copyright laws. Doesn't matter if you do it for a good reason, you are breaking rules.
There are do-gooder copyright organisations which trawl the internet and other media looking for copyvio and then pursue and recompensate the copyright owners.
It's kind of easy to subvert it. Add something to the original footage (a common technique is interspersed commentary) that gives you right under fair use.
If the video was made by Xan or a friend who has granted right to distribute it online, then these lawyers can back the fuck off and stop being wankers.
Posted by: Cycle Ninja
|
November 5, 2009 9:15 AM
Open letter to XanSimpson:
Find a good lawyer, but don't use them yet. Send a reply back to the sender of this message saying the video will remain in place until you DO hear from their lawyer.
In other words, stand your ground.
Oh, and tell Anonymous about it, too.
Posted by: David B
|
November 5, 2009 9:17 AM
Jayson Patrick isn't a common name. I wonder who the hell he is. Google finds one guy in of that name who is trying to market 'natural health and green living'.
David B
Posted by: firemancarl | November 5, 2009 9:18 AM
I posted it on facebook, let the fun begin!
Posted by: Newfie | November 5, 2009 9:20 AM
Wow, I bet her lawyer is as effective as her treatment. Peers indeed.
And TypePad has shit the bed again.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 5, 2009 9:22 AM
I think your conclusion is correct, but your math is a bit weird... Or maybe I'm just misunderstanding what the -> means...
Anyways, I think it would be this:
E = mc^2; where m = 0
E = 0 * c^2 = 0
E = 0
Posted by: Queue | November 5, 2009 9:23 AM
I know that mentioning the imageboard which must not be named risks bringing their wrath upon us but if there is one thing that will make Anonymous angrier than stupidity, it is internet censorship. It may be time to page the internet hate machine.
Posted by: ice9 | November 5, 2009 9:29 AM
Fair use applies, and more protections too. Be strong.
ice9
Posted by: SeiferGanon | November 5, 2009 9:33 AM
I'm sure she'll whip up a homeopathic bomb to lob at us for this.
I'm pretty sure this is called a "water balloon."
Posted by: KOPD | November 5, 2009 9:34 AM
Whether it falls under fair use or comedy, I also think it should be classified as narcotic and hazardous material. Excessive exposure can both numb and corrode the brain.
Posted by: Dr. Stevens Hawkings 386sx Jr. | November 5, 2009 9:37 AM
Dr Charlene Werner
I thought you would like to know that you will be contacted by Dr Werner's Attorney shortly regarding her video.
Oh boy. Loooks like Dr Charlene Werners is going to be contacted by Dr Charlenes Werners's Attorney, and the Attorney is a capital "A" type Attorney.
Posted by: SeiferGanon | November 5, 2009 9:39 AM
E = mc2
as m -> 0
E -> c2
My homely math training recovers
0 * x = 0.
Close. Step 3 was wrong.
lim of E as m->0 =mc^2
lim m->0 mc^2 = 0*c^2 = 0
Posted by: Killer Bud | November 5, 2009 9:42 AM
I watched this video when you first posted it, and it gave me a migraine headache. Just seeing it posted back up there again I started feeling a panging sensation creep up on me. I know better then to click it again as I have to go to work soon.
I guess it was okay to be on YouTube, that is until PZ found it and posted it on his blog for us to ridicule and get headaches over.
Posted by: NoAstronomer | November 5, 2009 9:48 AM
Well whoever sent the letter and Charlene Werner's Attorney are obviously both incompetent. A DMCA take-down notice filed with youtube would have had that video removed faster than you can say 'homeopathic bomb'.
Posted by: sasqwatch | November 5, 2009 9:57 AM
Pretty funny to see what this negative attention has done to a Google search on her. I do feel a bit sorry for the nurse practitioner in Milwaukee with the similar name, though.
Posted by: Tulse | November 5, 2009 9:57 AM
Why do homeopaths always use water to dilute things? Why not other fluids -- toluene, mercury, butanol, liquid telfon?
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 5, 2009 10:00 AM
Regardless, it's still better than "Dr." Werner. Her math went like this:
"E = mc^2; m = 0
E = c^2
Homeopathy works!"
Epic math fail. I wish I could just drop variables, but I live in reality.
She should know that you don't get to ignore the rules of math (except in biology because then multiplication and division are the same thing.)
Posted by: gothicgyrl
|
November 5, 2009 10:06 AM
I just sent this on to my physicist husband. I await his MSTK style comment. :)
He will get such a kick out of knowing that his job is now pointless because we have homeopathy to explain everything away!
toni
Posted by: gothicgyrl
|
November 5, 2009 10:13 AM
Oh and I have done my part--it has now been "Facebooked". :)
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 5, 2009 10:14 AM
Because then homeopathy would actually have an effect.
Posted by: Wrysmile | November 5, 2009 10:15 AM
Here's Jayson Patrick, his video is also on Xans You Tube page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i74sR_YM14c
Seems he's a bit of a nut for organic food, not sure what he's got to do with Charlene though.
Posted by: Bolland | November 5, 2009 10:19 AM
For myself, I would welcome the opportunity to mate with Dr. Werner and subsequently observe what resulted from the tussle of the divergent gene expressions. Worst case we get a Mormon that believes in astrology.
Posted by: Bolland | November 5, 2009 10:19 AM
For myself, I would welcome the opportunity to mate with Dr. Werner and subsequently observe what resulted from the tussle of the divergent gene expressions. Worst case we get a Mormon that believes in astrology.
Posted by: Rieux | November 5, 2009 10:19 AM
Kema @ 31:
That logic--and indeed Werner's original--is eerily similar to a passage from the late lamented "radical atheist" Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The book version, at least; dunno about the radio show.Adams, of course, was kidding.
Posted by: Wrysmile | November 5, 2009 10:22 AM
Ah it all becomes a little more clear at the end of his video there is someone promoting the psychetruth channel which is full on woo.
Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 5, 2009 10:26 AM
If homeopathy is true, does that mean the every drop of water I drink is urine?
Posted by: Tulse | November 5, 2009 10:28 AM
Yes, but consider the possibilities of convincing them to use other fluids: "Just dissolve the substance in some nitroglycerin and succuss..."
Posted by: Rieux | November 5, 2009 10:28 AM
Re me @ 49--found it. Werner is just regurgitating Point Four:
I'm still sad Adams is gone.Posted by: sasqwatch | November 5, 2009 10:30 AM
...so to really piss 'em off, it would be better to edit the video, removing the woo-promotion links, and putting in all kinds of humorous sound effects and visual mockery. Reposting verbatim -- probably not as good an idea.
I'd do it now, but have another paper to crank out... gotta get back to it.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | November 5, 2009 10:30 AM
Not only is her math faulty, but the way she gets to negligible mass is crazy^2.
She claims that all the mass in the universe could be compressed to the size of a bowling ball, thus making it negligible.
Without getting into her concept (if any) of density, I note that Wikipedia suggests that the mass of stars in the universe is 3 x 10^52 kg, and further suggests that the star mass is about 5% of the total mass. Thus total mass of the Universe would be somewhere near 6 x 10^53 kg.
Some bowling ball!
Posted by: Jim B | November 5, 2009 10:34 AM
Janine just said:
If it wasn't already, it will be soon.
Posted by: Lyle | November 5, 2009 10:35 AM
Nice girl, but about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.
Posted by: ERV
|
November 5, 2009 10:36 AM
I like how my brain reads 'Charlene Werner' as 'Charlie Wagner'.
Posted by: J Myers | November 5, 2009 10:36 AM
The "math" in the first part of ProudMonkey's comment is from the video, the second part (after "My homely math training recovers") shows how multiplication by 0 really works. No need to correct what ProudMonkey already corrected.
Posted by: Alexis | November 5, 2009 10:41 AM
So the dude lost his squeaking knee? OMG how did he walk? Why didn't he sue the living sh** out of her for malpractice? Oh, I get it the knee remained but no longer squeaked. Why didn't she say that?
Posted by: Alexis | November 5, 2009 10:46 AM
Why not send "Dr." Werner to Iran as a nuclear advisor. Let's see, to make a nuclear bomb...take some uranium, add water to make it more potent...add even more water to make it TEN TIMES as strong...potentiate it again with ten times more water!!! We'll make it the most powerful bomb on Earth!
Posted by: a3maniac
|
November 5, 2009 10:47 AM
He should contact the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They may be able to give him good advice with regards to this matter.
http://www.eff.org/about/contact
Also... does she have a copyright on the video?
Posted by: Mark Smith | November 5, 2009 10:48 AM
I love it when people say "infantesmal" instead of infinitesimal.
Posted by: PoxyHowzes | November 5, 2009 10:52 AM
Actually, I think she's not using math, faulty or not. Her "logic" goes something like this:
• Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, although it can be interconverted with mass because a smart guy said so and gave us a famous equation that I can sometimes quote correctly.
• Therefore everything in the universe is either mass or energy.
• Of the total universe, the mass portion is vanishingly small compared with the energy portion.
• [lacuna or lacunae here, though not necessarily only here]
• Therefore we can cure disease by manipulating energy alone, ignoring mass.
• Homeopathy manipulates energy by "saving" it or "storing" it (in pills) for later use.
Posted by: Quidam
|
November 5, 2009 10:53 AM
I think you're all homeophobic.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 5, 2009 10:59 AM
Me too!!
Except I'm not sure I like it.
Posted by: skeeto | November 5, 2009 11:00 AM
Here's the video right on their own homepage which anyone can download. It's about 100MB.
http://www.healingtheeye.com/flash/char2.flv
As for the letter, IANAL, but they should only be contacting YouTube in this case, who is actually hosting the video, by filing a DMCA complaint. Then YouTube would most likely take it down, with XanSimpson having the option to put it back up taking liability instead of YouTube. Since so far they are just going with the strongarm tactic (or maybe the lawyer is just a dumbass) they probably wouldn't bother doing any of that anyway.
Posted by: Darren Garrison | November 5, 2009 11:06 AM
Okay, our mass is insignificant compared to that of the universe, so you can cancel it out from the equation. I accept that. e=c^2. But she failed to note that our energy is also insignificant compared to that of the rest of the universe. So it cancels out, too. And light? Light moves at around 186,000 miles per second! And how many miles per second can you run? Not even ONE! So light cancels out, too! All that is left is the "2"-- we are all square!
Posted by: David Colquhoun | November 5, 2009 11:08 AM
Got the file. All ready to go for mass worldwide re-posting if necessary.
Posted by: skeeto | November 5, 2009 11:13 AM
To follow up on my previous post, there are actually four more videos of their crazy nonsense there (though not of Charlene),
http://www.healingtheeye.com/flash/detox.flv (29MB)
http://www.healingtheeye.com/flash/intro.flv (36MB)
http://www.healingtheeye.com/flash/mcs.flv (34MB)
http://www.healingtheeye.com/flash/seminar2009.flv (4.5MB)
Posted by: Michael Simpson | November 5, 2009 11:15 AM
@ PoxyHowzes
"Homeopathy manipulates energy by "saving" it or "storing" it (in pills) for later use." Actually it's stored in water. LOL.
I used to think that Creationistism=Alternative medicine woo. Well, creationism, though intellectually dangerous is much less insidious than alt med, which is medically dangerous. And now physicians are pushing this stuff.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 5, 2009 11:15 AM
You don't need to make up new words. There's already a word for homeophobia. It's hydrophobia.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | November 5, 2009 11:29 AM
"It's called hydrophobia."
Rabies?
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 5, 2009 11:49 AM
Fear of water.
Hydrophobia- Fear of water or of rabies.
Hydrophobophobia- Fear of rabies
Hydrophobia is a little ambiguous since it can be either. I guess I could have just said aquaphobia. But, aquaphobia can also be the fear of swimming... whatever.
Posted by: Pareidolius | November 5, 2009 11:51 AM
@63
Infantesimal must mean "derived from babies", babies rhymes with rabies which is another name for hydrophobia, which is fear of water which you simply multiply by the speed of light squared, so . . . homeopathy is real!
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | November 5, 2009 12:01 PM
ERV and Sven, I too first though of Charlie Wanker when I saw the title. Then again, they are pretty close to equal when it comes to their Time Cube value.
Posted by: John R | November 5, 2009 12:15 PM
Animal, vegetable, mineral used to be a radio game in the UK. You had an object, were allowed to ask questions about it, were told only that it was animal, vegetable or mineral (I think, I may be 58 but this was even before my time really and I'm sure that someone will correct me).
I would say that in this case Charlene is mineral. Even a cyanobacterium has a better grasp of basic science than she does.
Not only that of course, but E = Zero x C x C = ???? Zero.
How come its so hard to show (to the wider public) that these people are not just dumb, but ridiculously dumb? I give up. Thanks PZ for keeping going though.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 5, 2009 12:16 PM
Has anyone seen Charlene Warner's reaction to the very pointed criticism of her science and math? I wonder if she read enough to realize that she was completely out of her depth in subjects she did not understand, and made a huge number of basic errors. It's theoretically possible.
My own experience of 'alties,' though, is that she probably immediately focused only on the style, tone, and language of the critics, and use a self-righteous sense of personal injury to avoid considering the possibility that she was wrong. After all, anything that is said in a 'mean' way, does not deserve consideration: why would people be angry, mocking, or sneering if she wasn't somehow right? And better.
Like the religious, alties tend to view reality as a story about their significance in the grand scheme of things, and science as a set of personal opinions chosen to show off your character.
Posted by: Quidam
|
November 5, 2009 12:17 PM
Homeo, Homeo, wherefore art thou Homeopathy?
Posted by: dreadgeekgrrl
|
November 5, 2009 12:18 PM
I feel kind of responsible for this! After viewing the video, I emailed Dr. Werner the following because I'm just a snarky bitch:
Dr. Werner:
You don't know me, but I saw a video of you giving a talk about homeopathy and light therapy. In it, you made a number of factual errors that I assume were well-meaning and unintended and so I thought that perhaps, I would write you privately to point them out.
1> You cannot remove mass from Einstein's special relativity. The amount of mass in the Universe is entirely irrelevant for the implications of this equations. The reason, for instance, that you can move a one-ton car 300+ miles on just 50 lbs of gasoline is because the burning of that small amount of mass releases a huge amount of energy.
2> Stephen Hawking did not create string theory. In point of fact, he has been largely hostile to string theory (for fairly good reasons). The Steven you are thinking of is Weinberg.
3> String theory, if it is true (and there are very good reasons to doubt that it is) has none of the implications that you state it does. The 'vibrations' of strings are, if they exist, a probabilistic quantum mechanical affect and should not be taken to mean something actually vibrating. Rather it is a fluctuation of energy within a defined range of probable states.
4> Even if string theory is true, it would have absolutely no implications that we would directly experience since a single string would still be smaller than the smallest particle and in the same way that you are not affected by individual Z-bosons, for instance, you would not be affected by any single string.
5> String theory is a mathematical description that seeks to explain certain interesting features of the Universe at the sub-atomic scale and in particularly intense gravitational fields. Neither circumstance is something you will ever experience.
6> While it is true, in a very limited and technical sense, we are mostly energy it is true only because E=mc2 actually does hold with mass intact. E=c-squared is actually a non-sensical statement on its face sense if E=c-squared then the value of E would be E-squared but that is NOT the value of E. This gets necessarily mathematical so bear with me:
If A=B then B = A. If A is squared then B is squared if the preceding is true. Therefore, if A=2 then B must also be equal 2. If A is 2 then A-squared is 4. This means that if A=B then B is ALSO equal to two and four respectively. This is a necessary and inescapable conclusion for the math. So your statement that E=c-squared is non-sensical because that would mean that E is equal to the speed of light squared *directly* but that is manifestly not the case.
7> Your statement that 'nothing is really mass' is incorrect. The reason you are not floating away right now (and you aren't) is because the mass of the Earth warps space-time around it and creates gravity. The reason why everything in the solar system orbits the Sun is because the Sun is hugely massive and warps space-time around it. If what you said was true then gravity would not work since Einstein showed that gravity is the warping of space-time by mass.
I think that's pretty much it. Btw. I am not a physicist by training. Rather, I'm a graduate student in biomedical informatics but I read a great deal in physics (well, when I'm not in school) which is why the mistakes in your talk caught my eye.
Have a great day. I hope that you will take this email in the spirit in which it is given. As you are a medical doctor, I'm certain that the last thing you want to do is provide erroneous information to the public.
Her response was:
Dear Aj,
Thanks for the info….that video you watched is quite old and yes my talk is a little different now…but thanks for the info…
Char
I'd like to say I feel horrible about it, but I don't.
Posted by: Seth | November 5, 2009 12:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ehmrvY-ksg
Uploaded. Still processing.
Posted by: james | November 5, 2009 12:33 PM
Uploaded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZUARDnBoAQ
Posted by: Jean-François Bélisle | November 5, 2009 12:40 PM
Why did you make us listen to this again, ok? It's going to affect us in unforseen ways to watch this video, ok? Ah damn! It's already started!
Posted by: Stuart A. Milc | November 5, 2009 12:56 PM
You can also send her a personal note. I found her really quick with Google.
Cheers,
Stu
Posted by: Mandrake | November 5, 2009 1:26 PM
That would make it much easier to pick up the 7-10 split.
Posted by: A. H. O. Thabeth | November 5, 2009 1:26 PM
I was wondering whether is we call down loaded the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o ,
and then uploaded it to youTube and every other video hosting site that we know of, and then we send an email to Dr [sic] Charlene Werner to tell her about the videos and inviting Dr [sic] Werner's Attorney to write to us with a take down notice.
With any luck this would bankrupt Dr [sic] Charlene Werner.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Vanessa | November 5, 2009 1:47 PM
What really strikes me is her presentation skill are quite good and she is a very calming presence. If I didn't know much about skepticism or basic high school science, I could see being drawn in by that talk.
I have a friend who is quite intelligent and well-read but he gets apoplectic at the suggestion that homeopathy (or chiropractic for that matter) is not legit. He also has spent untold sums on "detox" regimes that have ironically and unsurprisingly made him sick. I get the cognitive dissonance explanation for religion or politics as people have a huge emotional investment in their beliefs, but for medical care? Why wouldn't you dump something at the first whiff of nonsense when your health and money are involved? Maybe my cheapskate ways are my shield and armor.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 5, 2009 1:53 PM
I'm sure she'll whip up a homeopathic bomb to lob at us for this.
I've recently heard that some homeopaths use homeopathic plutonium. Not sure whether it's the weapons-grade isotope though...
Posted by: noodles | November 5, 2009 2:01 PM
Brilliant! If repeated dilution makes something more effective than that should also hold true of the medium it is diluted in... since there is nothing more elemental than Hydrogen that would be the obvious medium for the most effective dilution. And it would be even more diluted if you absorbed minute quantities through your pores rather than consumed it. For example, the cure for snake bite would be sitting in a airtight container filed with Hydrogen gas and one-part per billion snake venom in an aerosol form. Obviously, the gate-keepers or "mainstream science" will be threatened by this revolutionary breakthrough in homeopathic treatments.
Posted by: https://openid.org/cujo359
|
November 5, 2009 2:13 PM
Mandrake @ 85:
That would make it much easier to pick up the 7-10 split.
In my case, the thing would still be in the gutter 2/3 of the way down the alley.
Posted by: Siamang | November 5, 2009 2:32 PM
Well, now I know what to do for the dread malady "squeaky knee."
For those keeping score:
Scientific medicine: wiped smallpox off the face of the fucking planet.
Homeopathy: treats a dude's "squeaky knee."
About a minute into her careening mangling of science ("Hawkings developed string theory" "Little U-ees") I realized that this woman is the Ray Comfort of physics.
Posted by: MikeyM | November 5, 2009 2:39 PM
Wouldn't the seven pin and ten pin already be part of the bowling ball?
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | November 5, 2009 2:47 PM
Bit late to the game, but I reposted it, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibi67idUWTA
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | November 5, 2009 2:52 PM
Oh, right. This is the YouTube page for the quack whose practice she works for:
http://www.youtube.com/user/ekondrot
Posted by: Kepe | November 5, 2009 2:56 PM
Another mirror:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyEla2PnpbQ
Viva la revolution!
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 5, 2009 3:04 PM
#68-All that is left is the "2"-- we are all square!-
I prefer the term "nerd".
Posted by: john | November 5, 2009 3:17 PM
Noooo, not that video again. I lost lost too many brain cells last time. Any more and I might start thinking homeopathy and creationism make sense.
Oh my, I just realised Creationists, They were created by Man, They evolved. The look and feel Human. And they have a plan!
Posted by: bcoppola | November 5, 2009 3:37 PM
XanSimpson would probably fit in well here, based on this video he 'favorited' on YouTube. Suitable for all ages and SFW, enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOHJUrcVdJk
Posted by: SteveM | November 5, 2009 3:47 PM
re dreadgeekgrrl @80:
Most of your letter was pretty good, but point 6 completely lost me:
I don't know what you were thinking but I don't see how E=c^2 implies E=E^2. Rather than going off on some weird mathematical excursion, one answer to why E>c^2 is that the units don't match. It is like saying 1 liter equals 10 cm * 100cm^2. If you throw out that 10 cm height, you cannot then say that 1 liter = 100cm^2, since a liter is a volume (a length cubed) not an area (length squared). And an even simpler argument is that the math is just wrong; if m=0 then E=0*c^2 -> E=0, not E=c^2.
Posted by: MadScientist | November 5, 2009 4:01 PM
Shall we call her 'Charlene Streisand'?
I wonder what can possibly be copyrighted in that video - did little Ms. Quack or someone she hired make the video? Claiming copyright is one thing - proving it is another. I can claim copyright to Mickey Mouse (damn it, the rodent should have been Public Domain by now) but who would believe me?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 5, 2009 4:06 PM
re: SteveM
I think dreadgeekgirl meant E = c the second time, not E = c2. At least, that is what Charlene says in the video at t=1m44s
Posted by: Giford | November 5, 2009 4:14 PM
Wow.
She really needs to down her meds.
Gif
Posted by: dreadgeekgrrl
|
November 5, 2009 4:20 PM
aratina:
You're right, that's what I was trying to say. Unfortunately, I wrote my email in a dash, in between class sessions, so it came out all garbled.
Steve:
You're right, the math portion was a bit convoluted. Thanks for pointing out where I muddled the issue.
Cheers
Aj
Posted by: folderol | November 5, 2009 4:27 PM
If homeopathy worked, we would all be powering our cars on water with a 10x (or whatever) dilution of gasoline. Duh.
Posted by: Sean | November 5, 2009 4:28 PM
This really made my morning. My favorite part is "we vibrate with a plant, mineral or animal."
Posted by: Mike | November 5, 2009 4:32 PM
Send it to boingboing if they haven't posted it already. They love fighting takedown notices.
Posted by: Warren | November 5, 2009 4:37 PM
Oh for Frank's sake. There's no copyright involved. If I roll tape of someone giving a lecture, I've broken no laws. If I further put that video online, I've still broken no laws.
I suspect this "Jayson Patrick" clown is a homeopathist himself, or maybe even "Doctor" Charlene Werner sockpuppeting.
In short, there's precisely zero legal standing for anyone to make any claims about copyright, and any competent attorney would know that -- and contact YouTube directly with a DMCA cease-and-desist.
Posted by: Tulse | November 5, 2009 4:52 PM
I don't think that's actually true, or else there would be no problem taping a live concert or play performance. Just because you are physically able to record it doesn't mean you have the legal right to distribute it.
Posted by: Cain | November 5, 2009 5:01 PM
I hope Peter Irons is reading this thread. I'd be interested to hear what he has to say about it.
Posted by: Vlad | November 5, 2009 5:11 PM
Mirrored here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG-oOgMqTXs
Just in case this dimwit's bully lawyers manage to take it off from XanSimpson's page
Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 5, 2009 5:16 PM
Speak for yourself daddy-oh.
P.S.: Thanks, your comment made me snerk.
Posted by: Infophile | November 5, 2009 5:45 PM
In my case, the thing would still be in the gutter 2/3 of the way down the alley.
Don't worry, its gravitational pull would still pull the pins to it. The machinery would then detect them as being knocked down. Well, it would if it hadn't also been sucked into the bowling ball by its massive gravity.
Posted by: AnswersInGenitals | November 5, 2009 6:03 PM
I have a friend who actually benefitted somewhat from homeopathy. He had recurrent stomach cramps that several doctors could not cure. In desperation, he went to a homeopathist. She mixed a potion of several herbs and then went through the usual procedure of successive dilutions until the dosage was sub-molecular. He took three weeks of treatments of this and it seemed to rid him of his cramps.
A few days later, he received a bill from the homeopathist for $1000.00. He went to the bank and was able to buy a $1000 note (Grover Cleveland 0n the face). He then had this changed to 10 $100 notes. He had one of those changed to 10 $10 notes. He continued this until he had change a dime to 10 pennies. He then went home and file some copper shavings from one of the pennies into an envelope, added a copy of the homeopathists bill stamped "PAID IN FULL" and mail her his payment.
Hasn't heard back from her since.
Posted by: Steve Ulven | November 5, 2009 6:44 PM
And mine: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeqAW_MMFNg
I used KeepVid.com for those interested.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
November 5, 2009 6:46 PM
I am a glutton for punishment. I watched the video again. All the way through. The stupid burned no less than on the first viewing. It is quite literally painful to listen to this moron butchering science to support her non-sensical woo. I mean, an attempt to assassinate Einstein and Hawking's work in one 8 minute slice from the hellish pizza of homeopathic idiocy? It is almost more than flesh can bear.
It gets even better with the revelation that she is trying to prevent people from exposing her as a con artist cretin to the entire world by deploying a pack of attack-lawyers. This is basically the ultimate admission that she made such a fool of herself that even she realises that the tattered shreds of her credibility hang by a tenuous thread over a chasm of well deserved ridicule. Too bad for woo-mongers like her that the wonder of the intertubes makes a little light censorship so much harder these days.
Posted by: Mikko
|
November 5, 2009 7:14 PM
just downloaded it from youtube
Posted by: Kevin Gallagher | November 5, 2009 7:52 PM
Done and done. I remember watching this to the end for the first time and just feeling bad that someone this idiotic has actually spent time trying to use science to deceive people. Bitch deserves whatever she gets. Well, as in social embarrassment wise.
Posted by: QQ | November 5, 2009 8:29 PM
I think her lawyer is just retaliating because I filed a complaint with the Texas Medical Board when I couldn't find her medical license information in their database or through other searching. I also directed them to the video, and suggested they do a more thorough review for general competence in treating patients with evidence- and science-based medicine, due to her complete misunderstanding of science, and the many claims on her clinic's website about what she can treat.
I was inspired by the ongoing Chiropocalypse in the UK, where skeptics are challenging the claims of chiropractors in treating infant colic and other such silliness. And with Daniel Hauser, Gloria Sam, and the other cases of children suffering due to wacky nonsense, I am rather hoping such a thing will catch on in the US, as well.
http://reg.tmb.state.tx.us/OnLineVerif/Phys_NoticeVerif.asp
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | November 5, 2009 8:48 PM
Poor Charlene.
I listened for a minute and forty seconds. At that moment I simultaneously ran out of fingers to count her errors and patience. Click pause.
Poor Charlene.
Without regard to her stance on vaccines she is about to discover the true meaning of "viral."
Hee hee.
Oh, Charlene.
Posted by: Tanya | November 5, 2009 8:56 PM
QQ - I added a snapshot of her Texas Optometry Board license information to the bottom of my blog post highlighting the video and other bits of her quackery. Apparently her license is active and expires this December.
http://tinyurl.com/yllmeen
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 5, 2009 9:26 PM
Tanya, the second video on your blog of Charlene is even worse than this one. She actually says Alzheimer's is a "vision problem" along with ADHD and dyslexia where the "light energy" is transferred through the eyes but not "received by the brain". Her developmental optometrist practice (with a behavioral approach) sounds downright dangerous.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 5, 2009 9:37 PM
This lady wouldn't get a license to clean the hospital toilets where I come from.
Posted by: ancientmariner | November 5, 2009 9:49 PM
I can feel my brain cells dying when I watch that video.
My Moms side of the family has a spiritualist background and she loves this kind of shit. Her newest fad is phrenology, last time a saw her she told me about it and couldnt understand why i didnt accept it as fact because it was 'proven scientifically'
Posted by: rcn2 | November 5, 2009 9:53 PM
Uploaded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi7nck1XcSs
:)
Posted by: Dax | November 5, 2009 10:11 PM
Did she say her vibrator was running out of energy
Posted by: QQ | November 5, 2009 10:30 PM
Tanya@120:
Aha, good job on locating the optometry license. I see I'm not the only one who thought of looking further into all of this :-)
I never did receive a response email from my complaint, but I think that might be because I filed from my overseas address, and the form asked quite a bit of information about visiting the clinic and so forth.
Regardless, perhaps the Optometry Licensing Board needs to do a thorough review of her treatment claims and understanding of physiology before renewing her license this year, as well.
http://www.tob.state.tx.us/tobcomplain.htm
Sadly, it looks like it has to be printed out and mailed.
Posted by: Fernando Montelbon | November 5, 2009 10:39 PM
Uploaded now. also Lol'd hard at that vid.
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 6, 2009 12:37 AM
I can bear almost anything but I just couldn't bear this ... I stopped it when I got to the part about the ears and strings.
You can download a copy from http://www.youtubekeep.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 6, 2009 1:15 AM
Oh for Frank's sake. There's no copyright involved. If I roll tape of someone giving a lecture, I've broken no laws. If I further put that video online, I've still broken no laws.
Uh, prove it. (Hint: I can prove the contrary for various locales just by hitting my magic google key.)
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 6, 2009 1:22 AM
I can prove the contrary for various locales just by hitting my magic google key
Hmmm ... it turns out that the copyright laws I've looked at refer to performances ... given its fictional nature, Ms. Werner might be able to argue that this is one ...
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 6, 2009 1:28 AM
http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/copyright/reports/classlectures.html
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 6, 2009 1:32 AM
...
I think the above means that Ms. Werner has no legal basis unless she shot the video herself.
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 6, 2009 1:51 AM
You're right, the math portion was a bit convoluted.
More importantly, it was totally wrong. Also, mc2 applies to nuclear fission but not to burning. See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory#Challenge_and_demise
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 6, 2009 2:05 AM
I think dreadgeekgirl meant E = c the second time
That would make what she wrote make even less sense.
Removing m from e=mc2 is wrong because Ms. Werner's justification for doing so is wrong and stupid, not because it makes e=e2 or any other such nonsense. Removing m would only be valid if m = 1, but of course m isn't constant, and the mass of the universe, which isn't relevant in any case, isn't 1 regardless of how tightly you squoosh it -- an operation that, of course, has no effect on mass. On top of that, Ms. Werner can't distinguish between "c square" and "c" -- phrases she uses interchangeably. It might have been useful to point these errors out to Ms. Werner, although from the video I wonder if she has the minimal education to comprehend them.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 6, 2009 2:09 AM
Just to be clear, Charlene's math was totally wrong. Charlene said you could magically cancel out mass from E = mc2 and get E = c, which was exactly dreadgeekgrrl's point in the message to Charlene despite the typo. E = c so E2 = c2, but E = c2 too, so E = E2. Charlene tied herself in a knot using her own invented string theory, but the audience kept nodding, cluelessly.Posted by: truth machine
|
November 6, 2009 2:13 AM
Why not send "Dr." Werner to Iran as a nuclear advisor.
I'd rather send her to India, Pakistan, and Israel, which actually have nuclear weapons (and a nuclear weapon development program).
Posted by: Saint Onan | November 6, 2009 2:19 AM
Prof Myers & XanSimpson,
Please, please, promise me that you'll post the attorney's letter here if it ever arrives.
Legal threats from the utterly clueless are my favorite brand of dumbfuckery.
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 6, 2009 2:45 AM
Just to be clear, Charlene's math was totally wrong.
Clear about what? Not my intent. Of course Ms. Werner's math was totally wrong, but I was pointing out that dreadgeekgrrl's was.
which was exactly dreadgeekgrrl's point in the message to Charlene despite the typo.
Uh, no, it wasn't. Here's what she wrote:
E=c-squared is actually a non-sensical statement on its face ...
No it's not.
sense if E=c-squared then the value of E would be E-squared but that is NOT the value of E.
It's true that, if both e=c2and e = c, then e = e2, but that's not what the above says. And even if it did, that wouldn't make e=c2 nonsensical, it would make e = 1 or -1. It's true that those aren't the value of e, but neither are c or c2.
dreadgeekgrrl also wrote
If A=B then B = A. If A is squared then B is squared if the preceding is true. Therefore, if A=2 then B must also be equal 2. If A is 2 then A-squared is 4. This means that if A=B then B is ALSO equal to two and four respectively. This is a necessary and inescapable conclusion for the math. So your statement that E=c-squared is non-sensical because that would mean that E is equal to the speed of light squared *directly* but that is manifestly not the case.
What the hell does any of that crap about A = B have to do with the last sentence? And what does the last sentence even mean? If e=c2 then of course it equals it "directly" -- how else could it equal it? And to say that it equals it, or equals it "directly", does not make the equation nonsensical. And how is it "manifestly" not the case? Of course it isn't the case, because that's not what Einstein derived, but Ms. Werner thinks it is, and rightly won't be convinced otherwise by mere or "manifest" assertion. While not as bad as what Ms. Werner said, what dreadgeekgrrl wrote is full of fail and can't be fixed just by removing a superscript.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 6, 2009 2:52 AM
truth machine, don't whine at us because you missed the point of a hasty letter designed to get Charlene's cognitive juices flowing. Not everything has to be perfect or right; sometimes the gist will do just fine.
Posted by: 386sx
|
November 6, 2009 2:55 AM
Dr Charlene Werner
I thought you would like to know that you will be contacted by Dr Werner's Attorney shortly regarding her video.
Oh boy! Dr Charlene Werner will be contacted by Dr Werner's Attorney regarding her video! Look out!!
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 6, 2009 2:58 AM
Just to be clear, Charlene's math was totally wrong. Charlene said you could magically cancel out mass from E = mc2 and get E = c,
To really be clear, Ms. Werner said "he gave us the theory that energy equals mass times the speed of light; e equals m c squared". She repeats this mistake later after she cancels out mass. She doesn't understand algebra at all and doesn't understand what "squared" means, and so dreadgeekgrrl's goggledegook would mean nothing to her, isn't relevant to what she said, and isn't necessary -- it is enough to simply point out that c doesn't equal c2.
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 6, 2009 3:00 AM
Not everything has to be perfect or right
Yes, I understand that you don't care about what's right.
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 6, 2009 3:06 AM
Y'know, aratina, you really are a pathetic specimen of humanity. I didn't miss the point of the letter -- how incredibly stupid. The gist is fine and I didn't comment on that; what I said is that her math was totally wrong -- that's a fact. I didn't say that it had to be right -- it wouldn't have mattered a whit to Ms. Werner. But I did demonstrate that your statement was wrong, and your ego just can't handle that, so you lash out at me in a most stupid way. This was written for the likes of you:
Good night.
Posted by: SEF | November 6, 2009 4:42 AM
Shouldn't homeopaths be limited to being allowed only extremely diluted access to the law? So, to make any legal recourse extra potent for them, it shouldn't be an attorney but someone 6 (or 12, if that's even possible any more!) degrees of dilution away from that attorney. Something like "you will be contacted by the pet dog of the nanny of the child of a cousin of a friend of the mother of the attorney".
Posted by: windy | November 6, 2009 6:10 AM
I hope you didn't mean to imply that the mass of the gasoline gets converted to energy. Unless I woke up in the future with the nuclear powered cars, the relativistic change in mass in that reaction is tiny.
Posted by: DaaromEvolutie | November 6, 2009 6:18 AM
Put op mine here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2xWm9ovBP0
Posted by: Francesc | November 6, 2009 6:35 AM
#144 lol
Yes, they should. But be careful, because applying the same logic, you can be suited for libel because "you said the dog of the neigbour of the grandma's cousin of a co-worker of a friend defecated in the garden of..."
As far as we know through the video, they at least have an extremely diluted access to math and physics.
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 6, 2009 7:54 AM
Damn, TM. You ARE a complete hard-ass. Props on that.
E = c-squared is completely nonsensical because the variables represent physical entities, not simply numbers. Energy is never measured simply as a square of a velocity. Because energy is the ability to do work, mass must be part of the numerator.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
November 6, 2009 8:07 AM
In TM's world one disagrees with TM because one is either stupid or evil or both. The idea that TM might possibly be mistaken is itself either stupid or evil or, most likely, both.
Killfile.
I know TM will spend a hundred words or so ranting that I'm both stupid and evil because I think he's an egotistical asshole. I won't read it and he knows I won't read it, but he'll still rant. That's what egotistical assholes do.
Posted by: SEF | November 6, 2009 8:11 AM
@ Antiochus Epiphanes #148:
You're wrong. In real mathematical physics, things are often arranged with the units such that the mass (in this particular equation and other things in other equations) can effectively be ignored because it's already included in another way. So sometimes that equation really is presented as E=c².
However, that differs substantially from the approach of the nutter in the video, Charlene Werner, because it's not about having m tend towards zero but instead about effectively defining m to be 1.
Meanwhile, in my 6 degrees of relationship dilution scheme, I've decided it's too certain that the child's nanny (or even teacher) would be known to the child's parent/guardian. So I need to substitute a different relationship in there, eg that of employer. Then it becomes: "you will be contacted by the pet dog of the nanny of the employer of a cousin of a friend of the mother of the attorney".
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 6, 2009 8:39 AM
@SEF...here to learn, and admittedly I haven't had physics in a long time. I think if I read you correctly, E = c^2 is a convenient way of expressing Einsteins formula and implies that mass is equal to one? Hadn't thought of that.
Fuck. When TM wakes up, I'm toast.
Posted by: SEF | November 6, 2009 8:50 AM
It's more a fudge in the units of E which make the m redundant, ie that component of the equation becomes an ignorable 1 (crucially not zero though!).
I have no idea whether that would also have been a point TM would have wanted to make. It would be dishonest of TM to roast you for that if he was similarly unaware previously of those sort of versions of equations existing.
Posted by: Ref | November 6, 2009 9:07 AM
I am not a scientist. I never did well in science classes and I'm helpless in the higher levels of mathematics. Even I can tell this tool has no freaking clue what she's talking about.
Cute, though.
Posted by: kopd | November 6, 2009 9:44 AM
SEF:
Thank you for explaining that. I, too, was confused about the idea of removing m (ie, setting it to 1) as that removes m's unit. My first thought at that point is "1 what?" You are saying that there are contexts where it is the "what" that's being manipulated on the E side of the equation to make the m redundant. I feel a lot better now and my brain can un-pretzel a bit. Again, thank you for taking the time to explain that to us laypeople. :-)
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 6, 2009 10:00 AM
REF-- My thanks as well.
Posted by: aircoupe | November 6, 2009 11:04 AM
uploaded....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsjTurCq_MQ
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 6, 2009 11:22 AM
When I was a kid, my dad told me that you should always act as if everything you say will eventually be public. I think that was good advice. The internet era changes it slightly: act as if everything you say will eventually be eternally public.
Prediction: Werner's performance will outlast her by decades; it's probably not what she'd have chosen for an epitaph if she could do it all over again but that's just how it's going to be.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 6, 2009 11:27 AM
BTW - if you're engaging in an information dissemination attack (as opposed to an ability to takedown overload attack) then posting links to your upload is giving the target valuable information. Titles are particularly important: mildly misspelling names or being vague really helps. I.e.: "homeopathic airhead babbles pseudoscience"
Posted by: kopd | November 6, 2009 11:35 AM
Marcus:
Very good advice, and a humbling point about being outlasted by stupid things. :-)
Posted by: BigBob | November 6, 2009 11:37 AM
Take a mallet to your brain! More Werner goodness below!
http://tinyurl.com/yebzdgb
Posted by: rwtwm | November 6, 2009 11:54 AM
I didn't watch this the first time it was posted, opting instead to listen to the talk by Lawrence Krauss (which was brilliant).
I tried watching just now but my brain started to melt at 2:30.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 6, 2009 12:15 PM
Phrenology STILL EXISTS?!?!?
<headdesk> – fortunately on a metal-reinforced desk
What next? Drinking mercury? Bloodletting?
Into my quote folder it goes.
And not just any future: the 1960s future!!!1! Run! Flee!!
Calm down, he's just an angry perfectionist. :-|
And will be used in university courses to provide one teachable moment every 1.4 seconds.
Posted by: dreadgeekgrrl
|
November 6, 2009 12:16 PM
TM:
Okay, I get it. I screwed up! Sweet and Sour Jesus! I ALREADY said my mea culpa. How many more times do I need to do it? I was hasty. I should've proof-read more carefully to make certain I was absolutely spot on. Would love to say it won't bloody well ever happen again but, unfortunately, I'm human it probably will.
There. is THAT mea culpa enough?
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 6, 2009 12:23 PM
blah blah blah. Take your meds. I'm just another one of your hate targets.
I quote Charlene who received that letter, "thanks for the info…". Did you miss that in #80?
Actually, it was clear to me you were mercilessly attacking a fellow Pharyngulite because of your ego (and a clinical case of SIWOTI). So I told you to get over yourself and pay attention to the spirit of the message. I think you also missed all the homeopathic humor going on on this thread. Your opinion on whether it was done well enough by others is not wanted or necessary.Posted by: Steve M. | November 6, 2009 1:40 PM
I believe Charlene got her "condensed mass" example confused with one that was published in middle school science texts in the 60's and 70's - something about a battleship being condensed down to the size a baseball, but still having the weight of a battleship
But, the entire universe into a bowling ball ?
Amazingly, this video is even less scientific than a lecture by Deepak Chopra.
Posted by: Holytape
|
November 6, 2009 2:07 PM
I can hear the quantum vibration in her head. I need to get a PhD by tomorrow. I haven't done anything yet, nor do I plan to do anything. Where did she get her doctorate from? If I could I would by several hundred reams of paper and had it in. I would explain to them the reason they couldn't see any writing is that I diluted my thesis over a hundred thousand times and therefor my work is a million times better than their pathetic energy states can handle.
I vibrate like a fresh water sponge.
I wonder if that pre-diabetic man's squeaky knee went away because he lost his leg to diabetes.
I do like her math. My wealth can be described in the same way. My wealth = the amount in my checking account * the national debt^2. Since there is nothing in my checking account, I am worth 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 dollars.
Posted by: Holytape | November 6, 2009 2:33 PM
What about the children?
I've always wanted to say that. But in this cases it's true. It looks like her specialty is "developmental" optometry. Its bad enough that adults are sucked into this crap, but she pushing this garbage on children.
Posted by: Michael Dickens | November 6, 2009 3:43 PM
You don't tell someone you're going to take down a video. You just do it. Venomfangx knows more about how to stifle free speech than this woman.
Posted by: raprat0.myopenid.com
|
November 6, 2009 4:49 PM
Looks pretty prolific!
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=homeopathy+werner&search_type=&aq=f
Posted by: windy | November 7, 2009 1:15 AM
Do you really think it's safe to risk confusing this woman even further than she already is?? It might push her over the brink and create a singularity of confused that will suck all sense out of the universe.
Calicarbonica! I'm a man of my word!
Posted by: Owlmirror | November 7, 2009 1:41 AM
Perhaps, good Sir, that will reduce your unfortunately very large and prominent Scepticism bump, or increase your Faith bump.
Posted by: newbery | November 7, 2009 3:02 AM
Actually, the relationship E=mc2 does indeed also apply to burning. If the chemical potential energy is converted to other forms of energy which depart the system, then what you have left is a system that lacks some of it's starting energy. The mass-energy equivalence relationship tells you that the total mass of the system has decreased a tiny amount.
This is not phlogiston, this is just the mass/energy equivalence. The decrease is usually incrediably tiny. In general, the only time you can practically measure this descrease is when the ratio of energy lost to the amount of mass in the system is very large. Say like in nuclear reactions which release a huge amount of potential energy in proportion to the mass involved in the reaction.
Posted by: argh | November 7, 2009 5:16 PM
OW
IT HURTS
Posted by: alan calverd | November 8, 2009 4:58 AM
If she's proud of what she said, negotiate a royalty fee.
If she's ashamed, just call it blackmail.