4 ms·

Every time this whole conspiracy theory comes up in my circles, I ponder on the means by which it might be true, even though it (probably) isn't. <tinfoil> Per

Every time this whole conspiracy theory comes up in my circles, I ponder on the means by which it might be true, even though it (probably) isn't. <tinfoil> Perhaps there are microwave frequencies which are conducive to agitating bacterial/microbial/viral activity - I could imagine a scenario, though I have no idea of the science/math involved, where the structures of the targeted vector are 'assisted' by remote stimulation. Like, you can give flagellum a little 'kick' in the thrashing-around frequencies, which make it more violent against cell-wall structures, and so on. Think, magnetohydrodynamics at pico scale. Were such a thing feasible, I'm quite sure DARPA discovered it decades ago. That's what its for, right? Either way, there is a way to approach this subject which doesn't encourage hand-waving and woohoo thinking, but I'm not capable of it. I'm sure there are ways that microwaves can be applied against biological targets that we, the non-scanning-electron-microscope-using general public, probably don't quite get, just yet, has been weaponised .. </tinfoil>

jacquesm 7y ago
It's just energy, which can - like any other electromagnetic energy source - be harvested by the right resonant mechanism. The chances of a particular frequency band at such low field-strengths having an impact on a structure not expressly designed for it is super small. It would be like the evolutionary equivalent of finding a 'u-beam[1]' ready receiver in something made in the 1920's. [1] The fraudulent wireless ultrasound charging company.
downshun 7y ago
> every time (conspiracy) comes up I ponder on the means by which it might be true Wrong. [1] Try to falsify. "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved." [0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
- jacquesm 7y ago
  That is exactly the key. They are plugged into the belief systems of the gullible. Religions also do this, and to some extent our past history of belief has set us up to avoid skeptical thinking at all costs.
  - downshun 7y ago
    Also wrong. Religious belief is disjoint from scientific discovery. [2] [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality
    - jacquesm 7y ago
      Wikipedia pages make for poor arguments. Also [2]?
      - downshun 7y ago
        What website hosts the best arguments? And since an argument is always hosted on some kind of computer (be it a webpage in a server or your brain), can you answer if a computer can explain itself? [42]
        jacquesm 7y ago
        > What website hosts the best arguments? It is not an argument at all. It can be evidence to support an argument but it is not an argument by itself. > And since an argument is always hosted on some kind of computer (be it a webpage in a server or your brain), can you answer if a computer can explain itself? [42] I don't think that has any bearing on the subject at hand, nor does it make any sense when taken seriously.
        downshun 7y ago
        You claimed that > religions plug into the belief systems of the gullible And > our history set us up to avoid skeptical thinking at all costs If I understand correctly The second claim is paradoxical. For the first, I argue that religions are not an entity outside us (preying on "the gullible") but inside our minds as a running process to make sense of our experience (as active skepticism). Just a well as the scientific method. However metaphysics answers different questions than science. I'm no authority on if either can be definitive. ... with thought as computational process, my question can perhaps make a little more sense. And only meant for pondering on the topic.

jacquesm 7y ago

It's just energy, which can - like any other electromagnetic energy source - be harvested by the right resonant mechanism. The chances of a particular frequency band at such low field-strengths having an impact on a structure not expressly designed for it is super small. It would be like the evolutionary equivalent of finding a 'u-beam[1]' ready receiver in something made in the 1920's. [1] The fraudulent wireless ultrasound charging company.

downshun 7y ago

> every time (conspiracy) comes up I ponder on the means by which it might be true Wrong. [1] Try to falsify. "Conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth, whereby the conspiracy becomes a matter of faith rather than something that can be proved or disproved." [0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

jacquesm 7y ago
That is exactly the key. They are plugged into the belief systems of the gullible. Religions also do this, and to some extent our past history of belief has set us up to avoid skeptical thinking at all costs.
- downshun 7y ago
  Also wrong. Religious belief is disjoint from scientific discovery. [2] [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_and_rationality
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Wikipedia pages make for poor arguments. Also [2]?
    - downshun 7y ago
      What website hosts the best arguments? And since an argument is always hosted on some kind of computer (be it a webpage in a server or your brain), can you answer if a computer can explain itself? [42]
      - jacquesm 7y ago
        > What website hosts the best arguments? It is not an argument at all. It can be evidence to support an argument but it is not an argument by itself. > And since an argument is always hosted on some kind of computer (be it a webpage in a server or your brain), can you answer if a computer can explain itself? [42] I don't think that has any bearing on the subject at hand, nor does it make any sense when taken seriously.
        downshun 7y ago
        You claimed that > religions plug into the belief systems of the gullible And > our history set us up to avoid skeptical thinking at all costs If I understand correctly The second claim is paradoxical. For the first, I argue that religions are not an entity outside us (preying on "the gullible") but inside our minds as a running process to make sense of our experience (as active skepticism). Just a well as the scientific method. However metaphysics answers different questions than science. I'm no authority on if either can be definitive. ... with thought as computational process, my question can perhaps make a little more sense. And only meant for pondering on the topic.