I don't do water changes

[vitz]

They are consumed by bacteria and are the same things that algae release on the reef.

once again, can you explain what phycotoxins are ? please explain which ones you think are 'consumed by bacteria', which bacteria consume them, etc.

why doesn't the same happen to all of the items on your posted lists earlier in this thread?

(i.e.-please back up your assertions-something tells me you cannot, other than by way of smokescreens for rubes)

you purport yourself to be an expert on the substances that macro/micro algaes released into the water column,and where those substances end up (the insinuation that algaes release vitamins into the water, and that there's some form of uptake of said vitamins) as evidenced by your earlier posts, (and your constant shilling of your 'algae scrubbers'-one of the biggest scams in this hobby, along with miracle mud and the eco aqualyzer), which were merely links to technically oriented books.

can you at least explain how the lipid based items in your above mentioned lists (like vitamin 'a') get absorbed by fish or corals via the water column ?

an algae releasing some vitamins into the water column, does not, unfortunately, mean that those substances are available for uptake by anything. many vitamins, etc., need to be *ingested* by the organism in an actual food item because they *aren't water soluble* (this is why liquid vitamin supplements for fish dosed into the wc are a crock, btw.)

if you really don't know what phycotoxins are, i can provide you w/ an excellent and educational wiki link.

i'm still waiting for you to back up any assertion you've made on multiple forums that a: algaes release anything of benefit into the water column that are *actually usable*, and b: to finally admit that your*scrubber* releases all sorts of quite poisonous substances/toxins into the water column. something which has been established scientific fact for decades, and that you constantly ignore, *every* time your confronted w/ this information.

i would expect someone selling a product to have at least the basic science knowledge behind that product. or to be able to *properly* defend their assertions

so let's hear what you have to say about 'absorbability' of the beneficial items you claim your scrubbers produce, and the phycotoxins they pollute the water column with (some of which severely impede coral and fish health).

i'll be patient

 

[Phixer]

SantaMonica vitz does this all the time, you can tell because he's never wrong, it's quite amusing. Ask him about plastic bags.

 

[Phixer]

:spin2::spin2:Vitz, I see your in denial mode again and are on the path to have this thread closed as well. This seems to be a trend for you.

Why dont you do your own footwork and look the information up for yourself? That way you will have no one to argue with but yourself. No one has any responsibility to provide you with websites or anything else your too lazy to look up irregardless of what opinion they may state. Anything can be proven or disproven depending upon who you ask, even the existence of unicorns. I would have though you learned after your last lesson.

Stop being lazy and do your own footwork. A Wiki link, :spin2: now that's a credible source.

Do I need to take you to school again?

 

[blanden.adam]

Certainly no one is under any obligation to prove anything to anyone, but if someone wants to be believed it is in their best interest to provide information to back their claims, particularly when challenged.

As an example, I can claim to be a dragon. People can choose to believe that or not, but should I want people to believe I am a dragon, I should provide evidence as such. If I fail to provide sufficient evidence that I am a dragon, it doesn't then become your job to do the footwork to demonstrate that I am not dragon. Particularly when you point out that it is unlikely that I am a dragon because dragons can't type.

 

[Phixer]

Adam, I've enjoyed reading your posts by the way.

How do you know dragons cant type? Have you observed this? Do you know this is factual? How? See what I mean. One can only say I dont know as there is no way to prove it without a dragon. Is perception reality only if it can be measured, presented and accepted on the terms one chooses to believe? And does universal acceptance make it real? It only makes it popular.

Remember Nicholas Copernicus?

Getting people to accept what is proven is next to impossible because so many things are subjective and there is no universally accepted method of proof other than individual personal experience. Especially when dealing with pride which routinely fosters ignorance and denial.

 

[billsreef]

[flamealert]...

 

[billsreef]

Don't make me pull over this thread...

 

[SpartaReef]

I side with vitz on this one

 

[vitz]

Certainly no one is under any obligation to prove anything to anyone, but if someone wants to be believed it is in their best interest to provide information to back their claims, particularly when challenged.

As an example, I can claim to be a dragon. People can choose to believe that or not, but should I want people to believe I am a dragon, I should provide evidence as such. If I fail to provide sufficient evidence that I am a dragon, it doesn't then become your job to do the footwork to demonstrate that I am not dragon. Particularly when you point out that it is unlikely that I am a dragon because dragons can't type.

THIS

it's far more egregious when the statements being challenged are patently false and misleading, simultaneously used to sucker unwitting folk into investing time and money into something absolutely useless, and actually damaging to the systems they're using it in, under the false pretense of things like 'some algaes produce vitamins, therefore we should use them,(scrubbers) even if there's no way for those vitamins (or whatever) to be used by the system's inabitants', while simultaneously ignoring a huge body of scientific research establishing the toxicity of said 'scrubbers'

it never really worked for adey, and it doesn't really work the way santa monica claims, either. myself and others have presented the information to him many times on other forums. he just ignores it and keeps shilling/scamming hobbyists into wasting their time and money to his benefit.and he's been doing it for years.

so i'm asking him yet again. giving him the benefit of the doubt even, to actually, for once and for all, provide *some* type of reasonable proof to back up the things he's insinuating or stating outright. he hasn't been able to do so in all the years myself and others have 'challenged' his statements-he simply floods threads w/selective 'spam' for pages that really don't say anything.

really gets my goat :furious:

 

[Phixer]

Makes sense. That should be interesting.

 

[blanden.adam]

Adam, I've enjoyed reading your posts by the way.

How do you know dragons cant type? Have you observed this? Do you know this is factual? How? See what I mean. Is perception reality only if it can be measured?

Getting people to accept what is proven is next to impossible because so many things are subjective and there is no universally accepted method of proof other than personal experience.

Clearly I was using dragons can't type as an example of a challenge It's a hypothetical, fictional situation. I have never seen a dragon, nor have I seen one type. (In this fictional example, that dragon's can't type would be a well know fact)



Now to the rest of the post. Certainly reality isn't "real" only if it can be measured. Molecules existed long before we could measure their existence, and trees still fall in the woods even when we don't see them. We can also certainly perceive phenomena without measuring them and that doesn't make them false.

The issue becomes that our personal experiences are inherently subjective and therefore biased by nature, so when trying to validate our experiences and present them as convincing to others, we need to present objective evidence. I have seen the Eiffel Tower and I've seen the Statue of Liberty. It could be my perception that the Eiffel Tower is taller, or the Statue of Liberty is taller for whatever reason based on my experience (how I perceived it based on what was surrounding it, how far away I was at the time, my emotional status at the time, etc). However, when we measure the height we find that the Eiffel Tower is 1063 ft tall, and the Statue of Liberty is 151 ft tall, so it is an objective truth that the Eiffel Tower is taller than the Statue of Liberty. Do you see the difference?

That is just one example, but there are countless others. I think your assertion that personal experience is the only universally accepted method of proof is really off base. I would argue the converse is true -- that personal experience is not proof at all, it's just personal experience. It certainly is useful and definitely has value, particularly in situations where there is no good way to systematically measure outcomes (many situations in medicine come to mind), but personal experience isn't nearly as rigorous as appropriately done research.

 

[jinks]

This bloodletting analogy seems kind of thin. Just because to things are similar does not make them or the results the same. By this logic any two things that share similarities are comparable. Cows and Bulls are both cattle. If i milk a cow i get a tasty drink. This way of thinking would lead to a great deal of disappointment when you got to the bull.

 

[Boboli]

Sooo !
Dont do water changes.
I dont give a piece of fecal matter. Good Luck.
I will have another beer ;-)

 

[Phixer]

Clearly I was using dragons can't type as an example of a challenge It's a hypothetical, fictional situation. I have never seen a dragon, nor have I seen one type. (In this fictional example, that dragon's can't type would be a well know fact)



Now to the rest of the post. Certainly reality isn't "real" only if it can be measured. Molecules existed long before we could measure their existence, and trees still fall in the woods even when we don't see them. We can also certainly perceive phenomena without measuring them and that doesn't make them false.

The issue becomes that our personal experiences are inherently subjective and therefore biased by nature, so when trying to validate our experiences and present them as convincing to others, we need to present objective evidence. I have seen the Eiffel Tower and I've seen the Statue of Liberty. It could be my perception that the Eiffel Tower is taller, or the Statue of Liberty is taller for whatever reason based on my experience (how I perceived it based on what was surrounding it, how far away I was at the time, my emotional status at the time, etc). However, when we measure the height we find that the Eiffel Tower is 1063 ft tall, and the Statue of Liberty is 151 ft tall, so it is an objective truth that the Eiffel Tower is taller than the Statue of Liberty. Do you see the difference?

That is just one example, but there are countless others. I think your assertion that personal experience is the only universally accepted method of proof is really off base. I would argue the converse is true -- that personal experience is not proof at all, it's just personal experience. It certainly is useful and definitely has value, particularly in situations where there is no good way to systematically measure outcomes (many situations in medicine come to mind), but personal experience isn't nearly as rigorous as appropriately done research.

Orson Welles war of the worlds....people thought that was real too because thats what they were told by a credible source. I dont want to derail the thread but have to say your one of the best around here when it comes to rational logic based discussion. I see both sides of it and for that reason only accept what my experience tells me. The more I learn the more I realize there is so much I do not know.

Sure molecules existed before they could be measured but they only existed as theory until they could be measured at that point they became realty to people. We say dragons cant type because we have not experienced this but do we know this for a fact, silly of course but fact is we dont know. So we accept an unfounded belief as factual. So many examples, many think they are healthy because medicine has not detected their illness. Does this mean they are healthy? To that person yes.

Perception is what we think, experience is what we know and for this reason the height comparison of the Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty wont work when using the based on personal experience analogy. This is because if one experiences both there is only one answer unless the definitions are not accepted by both parties before hand. One could perceive the statue to be taller but one could not experience this. When something is repeated using the scientific method it becomes experience and no longer theory. Until this happens is remains theory.
Another example, extraterrestrial life or life after death? Science routinely denies life after death but cannot prove it. So what do you accept?

Truth is limited to what we can detect? If a tree falls in the forest and no one sees it dos it still happen? Naturally we want to believe this, we are conditioned to believe this but it remains theory until it becomes reality until we actually see it. One of the oldest examples but still remains a theory. I believe it happens but cannot prove it, therefore cannot state it as factual.

Absolutely subjective and biased by nature.


Please see attached, what do you see?

What if you asked the same question to someone who was colorblind?

Who is correct?

Research is necessary for advancement but can only provide a perishable and temporary truth in the grand scheme of things. Especially in terms of medicine or biology.

And what if your agenda is not to convince others?

 

[GhostCon1]

Orson Welles war of the worlds....people thought that was real too because thats what they were told by a credible source. They heard it as a radio broadcast, did not check any other sources, and panic set in.I dont want to derail the thread but have to say your one of the best around here when it comes to rational logic based discussion. I see both sides of it and for that reason only accept what my experience tells me. The more I learn the more I realize there is so much I do not know.

Sure molecules existed before they could be measured but they only existed as theory until they could be measured at that point they became realty to people No, they still existed before us humans came along and said oh hey these things are here.. We say dragons cant type because we have not experienced this but do we know this for a fact, silly of course but fact is we dont know. So we accept an unfounded belief as factual. So many examples, many think they are healthy because medicine has not detected their illness. Does this mean they are healthy? To that person yes.

Perception is what we think, experience is what we know and for this reason the height comparison of the Eiffel Tower and Statue of Liberty wont work when using the based on personal experience analogy. This is because if one experiences both there is only one answer unless the definitions are not accepted by both parties before hand. One could perceive the statue to be taller but one could not experience this. When something is repeated using the scientific method it becomes experience and no longer theory. Actually, from then on it is no longer a hypothesis, but either becomes theory or law. Until this happens is remains theory.
Another example, extraterrestrial life or life after death? Science routinely denies life after death but cannot prove it. So what do you accept?

Truth is limited to what we can detect? If a tree falls in the forest and no one sees it dos it still happen? Yes, it still falls even if one doesn't observe it. However, if a tree falls and nothing is there to interpret the vibrations from the fall into sound, no. Naturally we want to believe this, we are conditioned to believe this but it remains theory until it becomes reality until we actually see it. One of the oldest examples but still remains a theory. I believe it happens but cannot prove it, therefore cannot state it as factual.

Absolutely subjective and biased by nature.


Please see attached, what do you see?

What if you asked the same question to someone who was colorblind?

Who is correct?

Research is necessary for advancement but can only provide a perishable and temporary truth in the grand scheme of things. Especially in terms of medicine or biology.

And what if your agenda is not to convince others?

Sorry, just nit picking lol

 

[Dino]

Orson Welles war of the worlds....people thought that was real too because thats what they were told by a credible source.

LOL, I don't want to muck up this thread as I'm sure Bill has a good handle on it, but I can't resist commenting on this^.

The whole War of the Worlds panic story is almost entirely a myth. The overwhelming majority of people at the time knew exactly what they were listening to.

 

[vitz]

Well on hand here right now I only have an abbreviated list:

Vitamins:

Vitamin A
Vitamin E
Vitamin B6
Beta Carotene
Riboflavin
Thiamine
Biotin
Ascorbate (breaks chloramines into chlorine+ammonia)
N5-Methyltetrahydrofolate
Other tetrahydrofolate polyglutamates
Oxidized folate monoglutamates
Nicotinate
Pantothenate


Amino Acids:

Alanine
Aspartic acid
Leucine
Valine
Tyrosine
Phenylalanine
Methionine
Aspartate
Glutamate
Serine
Proline


Carbohydrates (sugars):

Galactose
Glucose
Maltose
Xylose



Misc:

Glycolic Acid
Citric Acid (breaks chloramines into chlorine+ammonia)
Nucleic Acid derivatives
Polypeptides
Proteins
Enzymes
Lipids


Studies:

Production of Vitamin B-12, Thiamin, and Biotin by Phytoplankton. Journal of Phycology, Dec 1970:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1970.tb02406.x/abstract

Secretion Of Vitamins and Amino Acids Into The Environment By Ochromanas Danica. Journal of Phycology, Sept 1971 (Phycology is the study of algae):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1971.tb01505.x/abstract

Qualitative Assay of Dissolved Amino Acids and Sugars Excreted by Chlamydomanas Reinhardtii (chlorophyceae) and Euglena Gracilis (Euglenophyceae), Jounrnal of Phycology, Dec 1978:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1529-8817.1978.tb02459.x/abstract

you're aware that ochromanas danica is a freshwater algae, yes?

 

[Reeferz412]

while you're at it, can you explain to me what phycotoxins are ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phycotoxin

:reading:

 

[FlyPenFly]

Wait, is Vitz claiming that algae scrubbers are poisonous?

 

[vitz]

Wait, is Vitz claiming that algae scrubbers are poisonous?

it's not a 'claim', and it's not just me