No. In case of homeooathy, it is repeated dilutions or somewhat repeated washing many many times which dhould remove all active substsnce as per science rule. But it is not. Hence, the only possibility is that adsorbed molecules of active substsnce are desorbed n shedded in water r leading to information presence. Contamination can be due to other polltsnts not by active substance. Moreover absorption can also happen, if suitable absorbent is used. It can also be a reson to molecular presence but I think not possible in glassware. So adsorption esp physiosorptión is more relevant.
Science of Water Memory?
- Thread starter KUMAR5
- Start date
Nope. Either it's pure water, or it is water that has been contaminated by being in a dirty container. There is no other option.
You keep using the term "adsorb." You are trying to use that to make it sound science-y - but it's just making you look like a fool.
Then there's no active substance in the water. Period.
Nope. Zetasorption is much more relevant.
You can say so. But that dirt of active substsnces mix in plain water in subsequent dilutions is due to its adsorption and desorption on glass walls. So it will serve as molecular/informstion oresence of active substance in water in all potencies. Slow desorption will help to override science normal calculation of posdibility of no molecule beyond 12C or 24x dilution.
No, probably but mostly, you are not able to digest this scientific fact for possible molecular presence beyond scientific normal no molecular calculation in homeoosthic dilutions. Preceotiom if not biased.
Zetasorption if precombinat.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
Don't avoid the question, he said preceotiom.
I don't dismiss it. If others reject it that's their decision. If anything independent thinking ATTRACTS me. I didn't understand what I read though. Will try reading again river.
It is seven times better, and twice as scientific, as adsorption.
PLs tell more.
Hello all,
Greetings!!
CONCLUSION
In view of discussions in this topic and well understood SORPTION ( absorption & adsorption) and DESORPTION terms in science, well observed efficacy by homeopathic community since long back, my personal observation of Syrup and no other scientific possibility is apparent as of now for information/memory presence in higher dilutions, It can now be safely concluded that ADSORPTION theory as indicated in this topic should be a valid justification in theory and in practical for higher dilutions, Water memory verification indicating nil molecular/information presence of active and other substances in higher dilutions appear to be odd. Although Efficacy is beyond the scope of this topic, still Odd quantities ( both on higher & lower side) can bring odd effects--healing or harmig by stimulation or inhibition of physiological activities(hormesis type).
Thanks all for your contribution.
Greetings!!
CONCLUSION
In view of discussions in this topic and well understood SORPTION ( absorption & adsorption) and DESORPTION terms in science, well observed efficacy by homeopathic community since long back, my personal observation of Syrup and no other scientific possibility is apparent as of now for information/memory presence in higher dilutions, It can now be safely concluded that ADSORPTION theory as indicated in this topic should be a valid justification in theory and in practical for higher dilutions, Water memory verification indicating nil molecular/information presence of active and other substances in higher dilutions appear to be odd. Although Efficacy is beyond the scope of this topic, still Odd quantities ( both on higher & lower side) can bring odd effects--healing or harmig by stimulation or inhibition of physiological activities(hormesis type).
Thanks all for your contribution.
Last edited:
Hello all,
Greetings!!
CONCLUSION
In view of discussions in this topic and well understood SORPTION ( absorption & adsorption) and DESORPTION terms in science, well observed efficacy by homeopathic community since long back, my personal observation of Syrup and no other scientific possibility is apparent as of now for information/memory presence in higher dilutions, It can now be safely concluded that ADSORPTION theory as indicated in this topic should be a valid justification in theory and in practical for higher dilutions, Water memory verification indicating nil molecular/information presence of active and other substances in higher dilutions appear to be odd. Although Efficacy is beyond the scope of this topic, still Odd quantities ( both on higher & lower side) can bring odd effects--healing or harmig by stimulation or inhibition of physiological activities(hormesis type).
Thanks all for your contribution.
To add further:-
...2
Whether some changes can happen in water due to persisting close contact with adsorbed or sheded molecules in solution, expressing their information or memory, is quite complex subject for me,. but look possible, so can be explored by seiner science people.
I request people here that since science is not yet absolute and final, so they should also not be absolute and final esp on mass existing things with least adverses.
Further Off the topic, I encourage Dear Seattle to explore this brainstorming idea which anyway came out during discussions in this topic as quoted below:-
Last edited:
I hope that means you are done with this silly pseudoscience!
Yes, by making this so taken ss preudodcience, now science. Not so?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Do you think "preudodcience" is anything like cdesign proponentsists?
Perhaps it is covfefe time......
Sorry. I meant pseudoscience.
Further, Why pseudoscience can not be taken as pending to become science? Because anything, now stamped as pseudoscience can become science with new understanding in view of so anticipsted non absolute and non final nature of science? As it happened in this tópic.
Sorry. I meant pseudoscience.
Further, Why pseudoscience can not be taken as pending to become science? Because anything, now stamped as pseudoscience can become science with new understanding in view of so anticipsted non absolute and non final nature of science? As it happened in this tópic.
KUMAR5 , highlighted
Your Insight is spot on Brilliant , because it is True .
river
No, absolutely wrong!Further, Why pseudoscience can not be taken as pending to become science? Because anything, now stamped as pseudoscience can become science with new understanding in view of so anticipsted non absolute and non final nature of science? As it happened in this tópic.
Most pseudoscience is highly imaginative crap with a few scientific words thrown in to give a semblance of real science.
Some, some may progress to science, but very very few.
Some , get kicked Out of " science " , do they not pad ? And Why They Are Kicked Out Has Nothing , nothing , to do with crap science .