Then provide the evidence.
Science of Water Memory?
- Thread starter KUMAR5
- Start date
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
You can believe whatever you like. Science proves you wrong.
For what? For molecular presence it is self evident due to this new adsorption theory. For efficacy, I am not discussing it here slthough my personal syrup observation and millions live evidences using homeooathy, is valid evidence.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Sure. Just like astrology and crystal healing.
Because there is no molecular existsnce of Santa but it is for homeioathy now.
I think we are just moving in circle, you all anti-clockwise, I clockwise.
Obiously clockwise supercedes anti- clockwise.
Believe in it. Science is not yet absolute and complete so new understandings are alwsys posible. This Adsorption theory is new understsnding invalidates all previous odd understandings relevent to higher dilutions. Now it has to be studied afresh in this considerstion. Study afresh.
Science need to find out science or sense in every mass existing system. Previously, even placebo effect was taken as non scientific but now science could find its science as bu reward exoectation lead to dopamine relese in brain n increased mototivation. Gold medal reward can make a runner to perform better.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Sure. Homeopathy could be compared to placebo.
It makes impressionable people feel better - even though all they're taking is tap water.
I can get behind that.
...2 and probably but mostly, if there would had been no astrology then there would have been no astronomy. No crystal healing no radiation healing, no flat earth shape no round shape etc etc. Our brain need some seed to grow big tree in it. Discover, research, new understsbdibgs do not mean new creation but is converting like converting katin to english or sanskrit to hindi.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
OK, so you grant that homeopathy is an archaic belief whose time has passed in favour of science.
Not yet but can become once it is fully seen in science by its hijecking alike other. Therefore, it is avoided by homeooathic community inspite of understsnding it well. Whatever I discussed in this topic, probably is not in their interest.
Table 8.1. Comparison of physical adsorption with chemical adsorption.
Adsorption categories
Physical adsorption vs Chemical adsorption
Adsorption: forceVan der Waals force
Chemical bond force
Selectivity :Nonselective adsorption, Selective adsorption
Adsorption layer: Single or multiple layers
Single layer
Adsorption heat: Low
High
Adsorption rateFast
Slow
Stability: Instable
Stable
Ist one isn Physical, 2nd one chemical adsorption.
Now instead of moving in circles, it Will be more contributive to give scientific basis of rejection of this Adsorption theory, henceforth.
Good luck.
Adsorption categories
Physical adsorption vs Chemical adsorption
Adsorption: forceVan der Waals force
Chemical bond force
Selectivity :Nonselective adsorption, Selective adsorption
Adsorption layer: Single or multiple layers
Single layer
Adsorption heat: Low
High
Adsorption rateFast
Slow
Stability: Instable
Stable
Ist one isn Physical, 2nd one chemical adsorption.
Now instead of moving in circles, it Will be more contributive to give scientific basis of rejection of this Adsorption theory, henceforth.
Good luck.
Last edited:
Saying, yes or no or wrong has no value. If supported by scientific or logical understsndibg, then only it hold some value.
I shall be happy if people here can reject my adsorption theory by giving some scientific or logical explaination.
Oh right. The way YOU have given some science or logic to support your view?
You don't have an "adsorption theory". All you have is unsupported claims, unjustified belief and refusal to accept the scientific facts.
Explain your claim scientifically. When we fill a glass bottle with water and then empity it. Whole water does not come out and inner glass glass walls remain still wet. How?Oh right. The way YOU have given some science or logic to support your view?
You don't have an "adsorption theory". All you have is unsupported claims, unjustified belief and refusal to accept the scientific facts.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This is precisely the Theorist method: introduce new bits of garbled science, at intervals, to try to keep the pot boiling.
I could go through this and try to get you to understand it, but I won't, because I'd have more luck trying to explain calculus to my cat.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
This is either Theorist or someone with an almost identical modus operandi.Oh right. The way YOU have given some science or logic to support your view?
You don't have an "adsorption theory". All you have is unsupported claims, unjustified belief and refusal to accept the scientific facts.
I believe we are having our legs pulled by a troll desperate for attention, nothing more.
Showing Sun is not a Theorist method becsuse it is we apparant and well observed. Need not to go onto Sun and show. Adsorption and desorption is also alike it. It is also well apparent and well observed term.This is precisely the Theorist method: introduce new bits of garbled science, at intervals, to try to keep the pot boiling.
I could go through this and try to get you to understand it, but I won't, because I'd have more luck trying to explain calculus to my cat.