General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Rife Machine Research

Started by Charles · · Last activity · 26 posts · 673 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
5 December 2003
Last activity
13 December 2003
Original author
Charles
Posts
26
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
673
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 26
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Greetings, I have been researching rife's principles of curing
    pathogens from the body, and I find it fascinating. The problem I am
    currently facing is that there does not exist enough "actual" science
    behind the principles. Why haven't people done research into the
    physical and biological principles behind rife's research?

    There is a lot of sites on the internet involved with Rife that
    degrade its potential scientific validity, but at the same time I have
    read about credible institutions doing related research.

    I understand the operation of the machine, since this is well
    documented online. What I do not entirely understand is how the rife
    beam tube achieves resonance with a virus? Approximately what
    wavelength of light is being used in a rife tube? Is this enough to
    penetrate skin even? Do there exist calculations that correlate the
    forced electromagnetic/acoustic/quantum/whatever response of a virus
    to any of the viruses physical properties?

    My own scientific training is still rather limited, but these kinds of
    questions come to mind. Any help pointing me in the right direction
    would be greatly appreciated.

  2. (Charles) said:

    Greetings, I have been researching rife's principles of curing
    pathogens from the body, and I find it fascinating. The problem I am
    currently facing is that there does not exist enough "actual" science
    behind the principles. Why haven't people done research into the
    physical and biological principles behind rife's research?

    Rife's claimed "science" violates many of the well-understood
    principles of optics, phsucs, and biology. To put it simply, if
    his ideas were correct and mainstream science were wrong, none of
    the appliances or electronic gadgets you own would work.

    Quoted message said:

    I understand the operation of the machine, since this is well
    documented online. What I do not entirely understand is how the rife
    beam tube achieves resonance with a virus? \

    It doesn't.

    Quoted message said:

    Approximately what
    wavelength of light is being used in a rife tube? Is this enough to
    penetrate skin even?

    No.

    Quoted message said:

    Do there exist calculations that correlate the
    forced electromagnetic/acoustic/quantum/whatever response of a virus
    to any of the viruses physical properties?

    No.

    Tsu Dho Nimh

    --
    When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
    politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
    your kid and run for your life.

  3. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Rife Machine Research
    From: Tsu Dho Nimh [email hidden]
    Date: 12/4/03 8:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Rife's claimed "science" violates many of the well-understood
    principles of optics, phsucs, and biology.

    Uhmmm...TDN. Rife’s microscope was tested and verified by an independent
    third party to exceed the known limits of optical microscopy. Why must we
    argue that this data does not exit and the microscope did not perform as
    advertised?

    Quoted message said:

    What I do not entirely understand is how the rife

    Quoted message said:

    beam tube achieves resonance with a virus? \

    It doesn't.

    Any proof?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Approximately what
    wavelength of light is being used in a rife tube? Is this enough to
    penetrate skin even?

    No.

    Again, any proof?

    Quoted message said:

    To put it simply, if
    his ideas were correct and mainstream science were wrong,

    This usually represents progress since to progress means proving the wisdom of
    the day is wrong or false ( as is the disease theory of modern medicine ). Of
    course, there are always those who prefer to stick their heads into the sand
    and pretend they know everything. That action does make your behind an
    inviting target.

    While we may not understand how and why Rife's microscope worked, it did work
    and was proven to work. The rest of the story still needs to be unraveled for
    what truths it may contain.

    Dr. C. PhD.

  4. "Tsu Dho Nimh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    (Charles) said:

    Greetings, I have been researching rife's principles of curing
    pathogens from the body, and I find it fascinating. The problem I am
    currently facing is that there does not exist enough "actual" science
    behind the principles. Why haven't people done research into the
    physical and biological principles behind rife's research?

    Rife's claimed "science" violates many of the well-understood
    principles of optics, phsucs, and biology. To put it simply, if
    his ideas were correct and mainstream science were wrong, none of
    the appliances or electronic gadgets you own would work.

    Actually it is not as _simple_ as that.
    You could try doing a google on breaking the diffraction limit or SNOM and
    you will see research into this.
    As I understand, Rife made the actual specimens emmit light and thus avoided
    the limit - in a similar way SNOM works..
    http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~ag-fumagalli/snom/

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    I understand the operation of the machine, since this is well
    documented online. What I do not entirely understand is how the rife
    beam tube achieves resonance with a virus? \

    I have no idea of whether a resonator will kill virus/bacteria, my
    microscope is coming soon and I will be conducting some experiments on the
    poor unfortunate bacteria that I can see.

    Quoted message said:

    It doesn't.

    Quoted message said:

    Approximately what
    wavelength of light is being used in a rife tube? Is this enough to
    penetrate skin even?

    No.

    Agreed - I doubt any light coming from the Rife tube would penetrate the
    skin. Magnetic fields is another matter.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    Do there exist calculations that correlate the
    forced electromagnetic/acoustic/quantum/whatever response of a virus
    to any of the viruses physical properties?

    No.

    Tsu Dho Nimh

    --
    When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
    politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
    your kid and run for your life.

    Anth

  5. http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/gue/gallery/img0002.html
    Interesting image 10um x 10um.
    Anth

    "Tsu Dho Nimh" <[email hidden]> wrote

  6. http://www.chem.ku.edu/rdunngroup/new_page_6.htm
    Anth

    "DRCEEPHD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Rife Machine Research
    From: Tsu Dho Nimh [email hidden]
    Date: 12/4/03 8:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Rife's claimed "science" violates many of the well-understood
    principles of optics, phsucs, and biology.

    Uhmmm...TDN. Rife's microscope was tested and verified by an independent
    third party to exceed the known limits of optical microscopy. Why must we
    argue that this data does not exit and the microscope did not perform as
    advertised?

    Quoted message said:

    What I do not entirely understand is how the rife

    Quoted message said:

    beam tube achieves resonance with a virus? \

    It doesn't.

    Any proof?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Approximately what
    wavelength of light is being used in a rife tube? Is this enough to
    penetrate skin even?

    No.

    Again, any proof?

    Quoted message said:

    To put it simply, if
    his ideas were correct and mainstream science were wrong,

    This usually represents progress since to progress means proving the


    wisdom of

    Quoted message said:

    the day is wrong or false ( as is the disease theory of modern medicine ).


    Of

    Quoted message said:

    course, there are always those who prefer to stick their heads into the


    sand

    Quoted message said:

    and pretend they know everything. That action does make your behind an
    inviting target.

    While we may not understand how and why Rife's microscope worked, it did


    work

    Quoted message said:

    and was proven to work. The rest of the story still needs to be unraveled


    for

    Quoted message said:

    what truths it may contain.

    Dr. C. PhD.

  7. "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Tsu Dho Nimh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    (Charles) said:

    Greetings, I have been researching rife's principles of curing
    pathogens from the body, and I find it fascinating. The problem I am
    currently facing is that there does not exist enough "actual" science
    behind the principles. Why haven't people done research into the
    physical and biological principles behind rife's research?

    Rife's claimed "science" violates many of the well-understood
    principles of optics, phsucs, and biology. To put it simply, if
    his ideas were correct and mainstream science were wrong, none of
    the appliances or electronic gadgets you own would work.

    Actually it is not as _simple_ as that.
    You could try doing a google on breaking the diffraction limit or SNOM and
    you will see research into this.
    As I understand, Rife made the actual specimens emmit light and thus


    avoided

    Quoted message said:

    the limit - in a similar way SNOM works..
    http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~ag-fumagalli/snom/

    The topic was the Rife Generator. A worthless device that was claimed by
    Rife to kill bacteria (not viruses). There is no decent evidence taht it
    does. There is no theory that explains how it could. The are well proved
    theories that contradict the claims.

    As for the microscope, AFAIK, it is not claimed to operate by the same
    mechanism as SNOM. Have you seen otherwise?

    le moo

  8. SNOM microscopes avoid the diffraction problems associated with optical
    microscopes, which is what Rife's scopes allegedly did.
    Also you claim the Rife generator is worthless - have you any scientific
    references to back that up?
    Anth

    "Happy Dog" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Tsu Dho Nimh" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    [email hidden] (Charles) wrote:

    >Greetings, I have been researching rife's principles of curing
    >pathogens from the body, and I find it fascinating. The problem I am
    >currently facing is that there does not exist enough "actual" science
    >behind the principles. Why haven't people done research into the
    >physical and biological principles behind rife's research?

    Rife's claimed "science" violates many of the well-understood
    principles of optics, phsucs, and biology. To put it simply, if
    his ideas were correct and mainstream science were wrong, none of
    the appliances or electronic gadgets you own would work.

    Actually it is not as _simple_ as that.
    You could try doing a google on breaking the diffraction limit or SNOM


    and

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    you will see research into this.
    As I understand, Rife made the actual specimens emmit light and thus


    avoided

    Quoted message said:

    the limit - in a similar way SNOM works..
    http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~ag-fumagalli/snom/

    The topic was the Rife Generator. A worthless device that was claimed by
    Rife to kill bacteria (not viruses). There is no decent evidence taht it
    does. There is no theory that explains how it could. The are well proved
    theories that contradict the claims.

    As for the microscope, AFAIK, it is not claimed to operate by the same
    mechanism as SNOM. Have you seen otherwise?

    le moo

  9. "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    SNOM microscopes avoid the diffraction problems associated with optical
    microscopes, which is what Rife's scopes allegedly did.
    Also you claim the Rife generator is worthless - have you any scientific
    references to back that up?
    Anth

    Rife claimed to be able to see viruses "in full color." He obviously did not
    even know that viruses, being smaller by far than the wavelengths of visible
    light, have no color. Also, despite supposedly having made a breakthrough in
    microscopy, Rife made no substantial, lasting contributions to the knowledge
    of bacteria, viruses, or other microscopic objects.

    --Rich

  10. Then how can virus be stained then?
    Anth

    "Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    SNOM microscopes avoid the diffraction problems associated with optical
    microscopes, which is what Rife's scopes allegedly did.
    Also you claim the Rife generator is worthless - have you any scientific
    references to back that up?
    Anth

    Rife claimed to be able to see viruses "in full color." He obviously did


    not

    Quoted message said:

    even know that viruses, being smaller by far than the wavelengths of


    visible

    Quoted message said:

    light, have no color. Also, despite supposedly having made a breakthrough


    in

    Quoted message said:

    microscopy, Rife made no substantial, lasting contributions to the


    knowledge

    Quoted message said:

    of bacteria, viruses, or other microscopic objects.

    --Rich

  11. http://www.fluorescence.com/tutorial/fm-optic.htm#whatis
    Anth

    "Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

  12. (DRCEEPHD) said:
    Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Rife Machine Research
    From: Tsu Dho Nimh [email hidden]
    Date: 12/4/03 8:33 PM Eastern Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Rife's claimed "science" violates many of the well-understood
    principles of optics, phsucs, and biology.

    Quoted message said:

    Uhmmm...TDN. Rife’s microscope was tested and verified by an independent
    third party to exceed the known limits of optical microscopy. Why must we
    argue that this data does not exit and the microscope did not perform as
    advertised?

    Who was the third party, and when did they do this? How
    independent were they? Where is the data, including the design
    for the scope? Do you have a published reference? A URL?

    If this data is valid and the design for the microscope still
    exist, IT IS WORTH BILLIONS of dollars to companies like Intel,
    Motorola, and other chip makers. They could use it to "exceed
    the limits" of the current optical chip-making technology and
    make chips even smaller ...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    What I do not entirely understand is how the rife

    Quoted message said:

    beam tube achieves resonance with a virus? \

    It doesn't.

    Any proof?

    Any proof it does? What is the "resonance" of a virus?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Approximately what
    wavelength of light is being used in a rife tube? Is this enough to
    penetrate skin even?

    No.

    Again, any proof?

    The amount of light that could come out of that thing is about
    that of a half-assed firefly (all that glass soaks up energy) ...
    and who knows what power his light source was.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    To put it simply, if
    his ideas were correct and mainstream science were wrong,

    Quoted message said:

    This usually represents progress since to progress means proving the wisdom of
    the day is wrong or false ( as is the disease theory of modern medicine ).

    If Rife's machine worked as its adherents claim, that means that
    much of the physics and chemistry that is currently in use today
    must be wrong - the physics that allows chip designers to
    correctly calculate transistor design must not work. The
    chemistry that allows us to calculate the results of a reaction
    or design a custom antigen for a vaccine must be all imaginary.
    But I can see that my computer works, my coffeepot works, baking
    soda owrks ... you would have me set aside my ACTUAL EXPERIENCE
    with the results of mainstream science in favor of some long-dead
    guy's theories?

    Quoted message said:

    While we may not understand how and why Rife's microscope worked, it did work
    and was proven to work. The rest of the story still needs to be unraveled for
    what truths it may contain.

    So where is it, so that we can continue his work?

    Tsu Dho Nimh

    --
    When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
    politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
    your kid and run for your life.

  13. Anth said:

    http://monet.physik.unibas.ch/gue/gallery/img0002.html
    Interesting image 10um x 10um.

    Interesting technology, but it is not proof Rife's device worked.

    "Scanning near-field optical micrograph of a AgHal T-grain on a
    polymer substrate. The T-grain is composed of AgBr and
    AgBr0.9J0.1 in separated domains, which show a different
    refractive index. Topography and transmitted light were recorded
    simultaneously, the transmittivity of the sample is colour coded
    and overlayed on the topographical bird view image. The sample
    was provided by A. Kriebel, Ilford AG, Fribourg (Switzerland)."

    Note that this is a COMPOSITE "Topography and transmitted light
    were recorded simultaneously" and retouched "the transmittivity
    of the sample is colour coded and overlayed on the topographical
    bird view image"

    Much like the color-enhanced images from Hubble, this is part
    real, part human-enhanced.

    Near-field optical scopes DO NOT violate the laws of physics ...
    they use scientific discoveries of the past 20-30 years, such as
    lasers and computers, to skate around the edges of the limits.
    Rife did not have lasers or computers.

    http://www.physik.fu-berlin.de/~ag-fumagalli/snom/

    http://spm.phy.bris.ac.uk/techniques/SNOM/

    Tsu Dho Nimh

    --
    When businesses invoke the "protection of consumers," it's a lot like
    politicians invoking morality and children - grab your wallet and/or
    your kid and run for your life.

  14. Anth <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Then how can virus be stained then?
    Anth

    In various ways. A nice way is to incubate the virus with specific
    anti-bodies. Incubate the virus/AB complex with yet another anti-body that
    is linked to a chromophore (for amplification purposes). Then wash out the
    surplus antibodies and irradiate the remaining virus/AB/AB/chromophore
    complex with the appropriate wavelength and voila: the complexes light up
    and can be shown to be present, even quantitatively. Example of this
    technique: ELISA. in a nut-shell:
    http://www.vetmed.ufl.edu/path/teach/vem5110b/diagnostics/diag07.jpg

    Another way of visualizing the virus is do the same, but instead of using a
    chromphore use another molecule that will react with an enzyme producing a
    color (for example horse-raddish peroxidase):
    http://www.radil.missouri.edu/RADILinfo/dora/guineapa/vir.htm

    But, the only way to directly visualize a virus is using electrone
    microscopy.

    --

    Robert Bronsing

    Can't you see?
    It all makes perfect sense,
    expressed in dollars and cents, pounds, shillings and pence

    (R. Waters)

  15. Peter Bowditch said:

    The slogan used by Carl Zeiss in thief microscope

    The word is of course "their". I thought I had better point that out
    before some believer in magic made an issue out of it.

    Bloody spell checkers.

    --
    Peter Bowditch
    The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
    The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
    and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

  16. "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.fluorescence.com/tutorial/fm-optic.htm#whatis
    Anth

    This has nothing to do with the Rife microscope.

    Nor will it image an object as small as a virus.

    --Rich

  17. Actually it has, Rife used ultra violet light and resonance to make the
    virus glow.
    http://www.xenophilia.com/zb/zb0012b.htm
    Anth

    "Rich Shewmaker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.fluorescence.com/tutorial/fm-optic.htm#whatis
    Anth

    This has nothing to do with the Rife microscope.

    Nor will it image an object as small as a virus.

    --Rich

  18. Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Rife Machine Research
    From: Tsu Dho Nimh [email hidden]
    Date: 12/5/03 6:14 AM Eastern Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Who was the third party, and when did they do this? How
    independent were they? Where is the data, including the design
    for the scope? Do you have a published reference? A URL?

    When my electron microscope needs service I call in a tech. He always leaves
    me a picture of a grid to show that the resolution has been restored and my
    magnification is back to over 20,000.

    As I understand it, the Smithsonian Institutute did the same thing with Rife's
    microscope and was given a working microscope to use. Where the data and the
    microscope is now is an interesting question. Perhaps like in the "Raiders of
    Lost Ark" the device lies locked in some government warehouse with the
    admonition " do not open until the year 3,000."

    Quoted message said:

    If this data is valid and the design for the microscope still
    exist, IT IS WORTH BILLIONS of dollars to companies like Intel,
    Motorola, and other chip makers

    Nah, wouldn't interest them at all. The electron microscope works far better
    and has much higher resolution. Rifes's device was meant for use with living
    samples which the electron microscope is not and went up to, maybe, 20,000
    diameter magnification while the usual lenses can only go to 2000 due to the
    limitation of the wave length of optical light. However, as a part of the
    electromagnetic spectrum, other electromagnetic sources could work.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    What I do not entirely understand is how the rife
    >beam tube achieves resonance with a virus? \

    It doesn't.

    Any proof?

    Any proof it does? What is the "resonance" of a virus?

    Rife was wrong here ( in my opinion ). Viral particles exist, but are never
    alive. They are debris which always is left when a cell dies and the enzymes
    of destruction have completed their work.

    Quoted message said:

    The amount of light that could come out of that thing is about
    that of a half-assed firefly (all that glass soaks up energy) ...
    and who knows what power his light source was.

    Rife did not use glass prisms. Try again.

    Quoted message said:

    If Rife's machine worked as its adherents claim, that means that
    much of the physics and chemistry that is currently in use today
    must be wrong

    Not quite. We just haven't caught up to Rife's understanding. He extended the
    boundaries of science and physics. He did not disprove anything except the
    germ theory of disease, but then so have many others only to be ignored,
    harassed, or even killed.

    Quoted message said:

    So where is it, so that we can continue his work?

    How many more people would you think would be willing to sacrifice their hard
    earned career or even suffer death, like some of those before them, who
    championed Rife and his work?

    The medical monopoly has now nearly $2,000,000,000,000 ( two trillion ) reasons
    every year to squash anyone who would dare put an end to their monopoly and
    prove that the germ theory of disease is false and that our vaccines are
    worthless and harmful.

    Dr. C. PhD.

  19. In article <[email hidden]>,

    DRCEEPHD said:
    Quoted message said:

    Subject: Re: Rife Machine Research
    From: Tsu Dho Nimh [email hidden]
    Date: 12/5/03 6:14 AM Eastern Standard Time
    Message-id: <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Who was the third party, and when did they do this? How
    independent were they? Where is the data, including the design
    for the scope? Do you have a published reference? A URL?

    When my electron microscope needs service I call in a tech. He always leaves
    me a picture of a grid to show that the resolution has been restored and my
    magnification is back to over 20,000.

    Thanks, Chuck. Tsu asked for the name of the third party and you
    couldn't give it. I knew you wouldn't, of course, but it's so
    reassuring to see you in inaction.

    Quoted message said:

    As I understand it, the Smithsonian Institutute did the same thing
    with Rife's microscope and was given a working microscope to use.
    Where the data and the microscope is now is an interesting question.
    Perhaps like in the "Raiders of Lost Ark" the device lies locked in
    some government warehouse with the admonition " do not open until the
    year 3,000."

    "As you understand it?" I assume this is a euphemism for "I'm making
    it up again."

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    If this data is valid and the design for the microscope still
    exist, IT IS WORTH BILLIONS of dollars to companies like Intel,
    Motorola, and other chip makers

    Nah, wouldn't interest them at all. The electron microscope works far better
    and has much higher resolution. Rifes's device was meant for use with living
    samples which the electron microscope is not and went up to, maybe, 20,000
    diameter magnification while the usual lenses can only go to 2000 due to the
    limitation of the wave length of optical light. However, as a part of the
    electromagnetic spectrum, other electromagnetic sources could work.

    The issue is resolution, not magnification.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
    were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

  20. "Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3fd049e2

    Quoted message said:

    SNOM microscopes avoid the diffraction problems associated with optical
    microscopes, which is what Rife's scopes allegedly did.

    So what. They are wholly dissimilar devices. Have you heard otherwise?

    Quoted message said:

    Also you claim the Rife generator is worthless - have you any scientific
    references to back that up?

    Sure. Most of current physics. There is no known mechanism by which it
    could operate as claimed. So it isn't up to anyone but its promoters to
    provide credible evidence of efficacy or a credible theory. And they
    haven't done either.

    erf

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.