Science of Water Memory?
- Thread starter KUMAR5
- Start date
You know, odds are evens are there with every system. Nothing is absolute and complete. So there is always a socope for new understsnding and improvements by tejecting few older ones, accepting some new ones. Everything is still under process and will remain till it is absolute and complete. So svoid rejecting or degrading any mass existing system esp if it have least adverses. Keep your hopes alive with positive expectation. If you search google, you can also easily find lot of odds in field applications,even to much harming level, about modern scientific well checked system with proofs. Eg DBI tabs.
Whether science is absolute and complete and whether serious odds even to much damaging levels resulting rejections/banning not observed on field/practical applications inspite of fact those were very well studied previously before introduction?
Do not keep your eyes still closed, when molecular/ information presence is justified in this topic. Simply we now need more research to write it in science language only for science interest. Homeooaths may not like this idea due to fear of hijecking their home.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is all rhetoric - the same old stale thinking that got you here in the first place.
We've just gone through the whole explanation of how and why homeopath is bunk.
What you should be thinking to yourself is:
Hm. Maybe I've been a but gullible about the efficacy of homeopathy. I wonder how many other things I believe without justification. Maybe I should rethink them.
Sorry, to discuss efficacy of jomeopathy is beyond the scope of this topic. It is the property of homeopathic community, which they are securing. As told, my purpose was to check and justified molrcular or information presence of active substsnces in higher dilition s which is already justified. Now nothing left sbout it. Thanks.
Understanding science is the opposite of "keeping your eyes closed."
Water with nothing else in it is just plain water. It doesn't have a "memory" of what was in it before. That is fake - it's a lie, it's wishful/magical thinking, it's made up. It doesn't happen even if you want it to.
At one point you agreed with that. Then you disagreed. Perhaps stick to one position at a time?
You are ignoring the justified fact in this topic that molecules of active and other substances will always remain present in all potenties. So it is not plain water but is a solution.
I wonder: Could this be Theorist, do you think?
Yes, as of now. But quite logical and scientific. Probably Water memory was also rejected just on the basis of theory.
How?
Probably, they have rejected either on theory basis or on efficacy basis. But whether they checked molecular presence of active substance or not, is also to be seen. Even if they could not trace molecular presence, then also we need to check type of dilution preparations used for claim and used for verification? It can also make difference e.g if same glassware is used for all dilutions or separate for separate dilutions?
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Don't be an arsehole. You have even read the article in Wikipaedia in which experiments testing homeopathy were actually described.
This is just lying on your part, now.
Or trolling, of course.
AS I posted in my last post:-
"Probably, they have rejected either on theory basis or on efficacy basis. But whether they checked molecular presence of active substance or not, is also to be seen. Even if they could not trace molecular presence, then also we need to check type of dilution preparations used for claim and used for verification? It can also make difference e.g if same glassware is used for all dilutions or separate for separate dilutions?"
YOU can tell me accordingly.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Bullshit. You said, in post 123 : " Probably Water memory was also rejected just on the basis of theory." when you know perfectly well from the Wiki article that this is untrue.
Still flogging the same dead horse, are we?
In post 53 of that thread I referred you to an article pointing put that water molecules lose any particular orientation they may have within about 50 femtoseconds. (A femtosecond is a thousandth of a picosecond which is a millionth of a microsecond.) Here is another link to it: https://skepticalinquirer.org/2011/05/the-memory-of-water/
So yes, the memory of water has been researched and, no, it has none...
/QUOTE]
KUMAR5 said;
In your first post in topic, you yourself is mentioned above quote. It does suggest that theoritical basis was applied in varifying memory water experiment. It is also mentioned in that wiki article. Efficacy was also made an issue.
ANYHOW, forget the past. I sm checking it afresh with new understsnding of this topic i.e. adsorption and desorption which never considered before. For it, I shall need:-
1. Whether molecular oresence was checked and traced in higher dilutions?
2. What type of glasswsres were used for preparing dilutions for making claim and for varification?
I am asking no2 because, if subsequest dilitions are prepared in different glasswares, all molecules of active substsnce will be dilited out aftet 12C potency(H method but impractical for higher dilutions) or if same glassware is used for all dilutions, molecules of active substsnce will remain present in all dilutions due to adsorption n desorption theory.
It is bit important to know.
Sorry to say, pls avoid losing patience too early.
Last edited:
Sorry, last post could not be posted properly. I repeatedly tried to edit it but coud not. Pls manage.
What was the purpose of doing water memory claim?
It was to justify presence of information of active substances. It was then could not be properly looked into and varified so remained unconclusicmve. But under this new adsorption throry It should be able to conclude.
By disolving some salt in water, we can day that this water is salty water or this water has information and memory of salt obiously till salt molecules exist in that water.
Wrong.
It was a baseless claim. Especially since there is no "active substance".
Also wrong. It has been looked into properly and it was found - conclusively - that the claims are false.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Perhaps KUMAR would benefit from understanding that medical science is done based on the Null Hypothesis.
The Null Hypothesis starts with the assumption that there is no connection between two things - until it is shown experimentally that there must be a connection.
"Testing (rejecting or failing to reject) the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are (or there are not) grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g., that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science;"
"The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
The Null Hypothesis starts with the assumption that there is no connection between two things - until it is shown experimentally that there must be a connection.
"Testing (rejecting or failing to reject) the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are (or there are not) grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g., that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science;"
"The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Molecules of the active substance are NOT present in all "potentcies." There is a potency (zero) where none are present. You get zero potency if you dilute it enough.
Once again:
If there is something dissolved in it, it is not plain water. It is water with something dissolved in it.
If there is nothing dissolved in it, it is plain water. There's no "memory."
Very simple. Do you disagree?
A⁰
To me, molecular, information or memory presence, if persistent is same thing.
No, it applies do dilutions which have no adsorptión and desorption effect.
To me, molecular, information or memory presence, if persistent is same thing.
No, it is only senseful claim.