Riddle Me This

[Kenzo1]

In pure theory, and taking into consideration the laws of conservation of momentum, it makes sense that opposing waves at precisely the opposite frequency might appear to cancel each other out.  This is a pretty common understanding.  However, down at the absolute level (no matter how infinitesimal) the collision of two objects will not simply discard all of the energy and inertia which was propelling them to begin with.  This energy has to go somewhere, and while much of it is dissipated in the form of heat, there is still likely some residual energy which needs to find some mechanism to dissipate, albeit tiny in comparison.  This is one of the problems I have with media reports of some "revolutionary" finding like the one being addressed here.  They always fail to put these forces into perspective and/or meaningful terms.  So, the common reader is left no way to understand the different magnitudes of these resultant forces in real-world terms.  Thus, the conclusion then appears to become some profound new discovery, but when you distill some of these things down, it's just people wrapping fancy technical terms around already understood basic concepts of physics.  

So, the concept discussed here is real (again, in absolute terms), but the reality of what is presented is not as significant as it might appear.  And then to wrap words like "peer reviewed" around these things to lend an air of legitimacy (like you should pay attention), only makes matters worse.  Of course they are peer reviewed, because the original concepts were heavily challenged and peered reviewed back in the day.

Ultimately, the underpinning message here, in very simplistic terms, is yes, there is some residual energy given off by act of placing your hands together to pray (this is ultimately what point they are trying to drive home).  However, on the scale of human life and consciousness it is likely to the point of near insignificance.

These types of things are pretty common in today's day and age.  On a somewhat related note, I get a special kick out of reading technical white papers which make similar claims of revolutionary 'new' discoveries by simply re-packaging Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity as if they've come up with some new and improved version of those theories.  Often times, if you read these carefully, you see that there is really nothing new being presented, it is rather just an application of some element or elements of the original theories in practice.  Einstein, for his part, never really wasted much time making such analogies.  He had far more important objectives to see to.  In fact, he was often just validating one of his ideas so he could build on those for future developments.  It was things like this which, to me, signaled a new direction in the field of physics, and the path it would likely take in the future.  Not all of it, but some.  This was one of the things which caused me to step away from the consideration of further graduate studies in physics back in the late 80's.  To me, that was more about stroking ego's than science.  But I digress.

I do appreciate reading these types of things though, although I'm not 100% sure I understand why.  In some weird way, it must help my mind justify my decisions long ago.

Thanks for posting, Kenzo.

Aaaaaw crap   so much for the new discovery  . 

Well in terms of physics , creating fascinating discoverys / theorys is sometimes to easy, as not all can digest/understand them in required depth, like me  

Thanks for debunking FCD , your debunking has been noted !