Science of Water Memory?

[KUMAR5]

Energy can not be memorised! Energy is not information! How many more times do you have to be told that? So no, let's not first accept it - because then we'd both be wrong!
Again, how many times are you just going to repeat the same examples while ignoring every explanation as to why they are not valid?? And you claim not to be a troll??
Yes, things can be stored. Energy can be stored. Junk in my garage can be stored. The garage does not have a memory!
Not in the "storage" part, no. In the "memory" part, yes, there is issue, as explained, and as continually ignored by you.

I simply meant, information of energy and ehich can be stored.

In my 6 justifications, i was not talking about efficacy from that low dose. That is a different subject. May tske up in future. Just concentrate on other mokcules than water present in higher dikutions in view of those 6 justifications.

 

[Sarkus]

I simply meant, information of energy and ehich can be stored.

Information about energy (e.g. quantity thereof) is indeed information. But water does not hold that information. It merely holds the energy. Do you not see the difference?
A garage holds the junk, but it does not hold information about that junk.

Look, do you accept that energy is NOT information?
Do you therefore accept that the storage of energy is NOT a memory, given that memory is the storage of information?
Do you therefore accept that your claim that water has memory because it has a store of energy is false?

In my 6 justifications, i was not talking about efficacy from that low dose. That is a different subject. May tske up in future. Just concentrate on other mokcules than water present in higher dikutions in view of those 6 justifications.

Which are, on the whole, and as explained in that thread, and as continued to be ignored by you, irrelevant to that thread, as that thread is NOT about the existence of any non-water molecules in higher dilutions, but specifically about whether there is any active ingredient in those dilutions.
I painstakingly went through your justifications one by one and explained, quite clearly, why they do not justify the existence of any active ingredient. You have yet to address those issues. That is why I repeatedly call you a troll, because all you do is bleat the same "my 6 justifications" crap. And if something behaves like a troll, they should expect to be called one. So stop being a troll!

 

[KUMAR5]

Information about energy (e.g. quantity thereof) is indeed information. But water does not hold that information. It merely holds the energy. Do you not see the difference?

It looks same to me. You ate just confusing. Whatever you call, it is information storage and its memory in water. Mostly, energy intersctions, its input its storage, its information, its memory and its recalling/relese/emitting should be happening eith all matters abd all complex matters...all things abd being. No natural system can be withiut rnergy.

Look, do you accept that energy is NOT information?
Do you therefore accept that the storage of energy is NOT a memory, given that memory is the storage of information?
Do you therefore accept that your claim that water has memory because it has a store of energy is false?

I do not acceot all these. You are just confuding. Energy storage in water is infirmation storage and so its memory in water. Blue things emit blue rays, red things red. It is infirmation of energy storage or menory of those substsnces. Sane plants look less or deep green, it is information of energy in them. Actually all substsnces should have an information or memory of their corresponding energy.

Which are, on the whole, and as explained in that thread, and as continued to be ignored by you, irrelevant to that thread, as that thread is NOT about the existence of any non-water molecules in higher dilutions, but specifically about whether there is any active ingredient in those dilutions.
I painstakingly went through your justifications one by one and explained, quite clearly, why they do not justify the existence of any active ingredient. You have yet to address those issues. That is why I repeatedly call you a troll, because all you do is bleat the same "my 6 justifications" crap. And if something behaves like a troll, they should expect to be called one. So stop being a troll!

No, there also you just tried to confuse the facts by using pulling yhe skin from hairs tactics instead understsnding logic, sense snd science behind those 6 justifications which should had been understsood even by a layman in science. Yes apple falling did not explained whole theory of gravitation snd relativity but still it exposined the basic sense of these. If that world jad been radicuked then we would had missed big things in science. So just leave your perceotion and be positive for science to really add somethiing to it. By doubting new indications, you can be big looser of science. I am not going to reoeat or surge on thise 6 justifications now it is upto you to evaluate those indications yourself if really a follower of science. Good luck.

 

[KUMAR5]

It is woo. It has not passed ANY scientific validation.

Not.

May be. But new things are always open for science to add or aid it. Not so?
Therefore, i do not wholy base science as absolute and complete. I also look things by their logics abd practical appearsnces esp long.
Am I unjustified in it?

 

[Write4U]

Question; How does the human body use that memory contained in water? By what process is this memory effective in any biochemical way?
If I drink irradiated water will I be exposed to harmful radiation? Does water remember radioactivity?

Does distillation remove radioactivity from water?

Distillation removed salts, heavy metals, and radioactive fallout (since water itself cannot become radioactive, the radioactive components are referred to as radioactive fallout). Filtering the water will also remove the radioactive fallout. Aug 15,2020

https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshe...oactivity/How_to_purify_radioactive_materials

 

[James R]

Claims about water having "memory" are completely unproven. To the extent that they are used to "explain" how homeopathy might work, they are useless, because all controlled tests of homeopathy have shown that it is no more effective than a placebo. In other words, until a homeopathic effect is established as real, speculating about how it might work is an exercise in fantasy. Baby steps. First show that homeopathy is effective for something (good luck with that), then you can start to form hypothesis on why it is effective.

There also seems to be some confusion about what memory is. Memory means that "old" information can be recovered from something and "read out" in some way. For instance, you remember things that happened to you yesterday, because some of them are encoded in long-term memory in your brain's neural networks. When you recall them, certain clusters of neurons fire and bring the memory to consciousness once again.

For water to have "memory", it would have to be possible to "recover" or reconstruct or "read out" some past state of the water. For example, if you assert that water has a memory of its past temperature, then you should be able to propose a test or scientific method for "reading out" the past temperature history of the water, so that you could determine definitively, say, that "this pot of water was boiled between 2 and 2.05 pm yesterday" or "this pot of water froze for two days from March 27 to March 29".

As it applies to homeopathy, the memory claim is that a quantity of homeopathic water "remembers" that it used to have homeopathically active substances in it. However, there is no test anyone can do to say "yesterday, this highly diluted water contained 3 drops of ginseng" or whatever.

The claims get much sillier with homeopathy. One of the primary claims is that because diluted water supposedly has this "memory" of past active substances, therefore the diluted water acts as if it now has those active substances in it. Think about this claim. It's patently absurd on its face, isn't it? If that's not enough, add in the claim that the more dilute the water is now, the more effective this "memory" of past substances is as a medicine, now.

Of course, merely being an absurd bunch of claims doesn't automatically mean the claims are false. That's why I emphasise that these claims must be testable and tested. If homeopathy can be proved effective, then maybe there's something to this memory malarky, no matter how stupid it sounds.

But, sadly for the homeopaths, homeopathy fails every test of effectiveness (above the level of placebo).

Bottom line: there's no point worrying about whether water memory is real, until homeopathy is shown to work effectively as medicine. I'd suggest that homeopaths should start working on showing that, rather than wasting their time making empty claims about memory.

 

[KUMAR5]

Claims about water having "memory" are completely unproven. To the extent that they are used to "explain" how homeopathy might work, they are useless, because all controlled tests of homeopathy have shown that it is no more effective than a placebo. y...

Thanks for your guidance which I should accept.

It is apparently right, whatever you have mentioned exist in current scientific understanding. However, I shall still remain unclear in view of these factors:-

1. Some unintentional, miss, mistakes and weaknesses can still be there in all modern understandings. Science is still a continuous process for improved understandings.

2. Previously, I told studies on homeopathy were mostly done inappropriately . These are different nature agents showing different type of effects and adverse effects so can not be studied at par to studies on modern medicines. These should be studies on real patients in the same way by competent homeopaths as these are actually prescribed in their clinics esp on individualized basis. Moreover when stimulus is real, it should not be classified as placebo. May this stimulus be of any nature. Fake stimulus is must to justify placebo.

2. Previously I quoted one test report and one appropriately done study(individualized) which shown higher dilutions are not plain water and study outcome was positive. Moreover lot of practical appreances already exist since long back in people at mass.

3. I am still trying to valuate memory or information presence in water of energy and matters interacted with nit. Apparently it look possible...may not be in strict science language.

4. A;; these exercise is not wholly for homeopathy by me but also for science and to satisfy my conicity. Because for homeopathy, I also need to justify lactose memory along with water memory because both water and lactose based homeopathic remedies...dilution and trituration are used.

Hope it will clear.

Warm regards.

 

[Sarkus]

It looks same to me.

Then you need glasses. And until you get your eyesight corrected you really shouldn't be driving.

You ate just confusing.

It seems I'm certainly confusing you. But it's not difficult. What exactly are you struggling with? Because if all you can do is repeat your incorrect understanding, you're not going to improve your understanding.

Whatever you call, it is information storage and its memory in water.

You see, there you go, completely ignoring what you have been told and just repeating your flawed understanding. You really don't help yourself, you know.

Mostly, energy intersctions, its input its storage, its information, its memory and its recalling/relese/emitting should be happening eith all matters abd all complex matters...all things abd being. No natural system can be withiut rnergy.

ENERGY IS NOT INFORMATION.
Do I need to repeat that to you again?
A memory is the retention of information of something no longer experienced. Explain to me, if you are in any way capable, how the energy in water satisfies that notion of memory? Water has X energy, then loses some to the colder air, so now has Y (X > Y) energy. What information is being retained by the water about the energy it no longer has? Answer that, if you are capable. Or will you just be your trollish self and dismiss it as "confusing"?

I do not acceot all these. You are just confuding.

If it is confusing you then maybe you need to ask yourself why. Is it perhaps because your current understanding, that you're trying to cling to, doesn't fit what you are being told? And that you lack the capacity to assimilate the new understanding? Or is it simple dishonesty on your part: putting your head in the sand and claiming "confusion" just so you can cling to your incorrect position?

Energy storage in water is infirmation storage...

ENERGY IS NOT INFORMATION.

...and so its memory in water.

Using something out of storage is not what makes a memory. A memory is the holding of the information of that which it no longer has/experiences.
Water is said to have a memory (albeit for pico-seconds) NOT because of the energy it has stored but because it retains the molecular structure it had when mixed with the substance it no longer contains.

Blue things emit blue rays, red things red. It is infirmation of energy storage or menory of those substsnces.

You are now confusing the memory of facts that we have about the energy, with those things having memories. Again, do you not see the difference??

Sane plants look less or deep green, it is information of energy in them. Actually all substsnces should have an information or memory of their corresponding energy.

No! We (humans) have memories of facts that we establish about things. Those things in themselves don't necessarily do. You are continuing to confuse the two despite every effort to highlight this confusion to you, despite every effort to get you to understand. But I guess sometimes the horse really won't run, although it's yet to be established whether this is due to dishonest obstinacy or just lack of capability.

No, there also you just tried to confuse the facts by using pulling yhe skin from hairs tactics instead understsnding logic, sense snd science behind those 6 justifications which should had been understsood even by a layman in science.

If you bother to go back and actually read what was written, it is clear that I understood what you wrote (although I leave room for the possibility that you didn't write what you meant), and used science and logic to explain to you why your justification was nothing of the sort (for existence of active ingredient). You have singularly failed to deal with those responses, and instead, in your dishonest and trollish ways, you just try to dismiss them.
All you're doing is displaying that dishonesty to everyone else, and confirming with yet more evidence that you are a troll.

Yes apple falling did not explained whole theory of gravitation snd relativity but still it exposined the basic sense of these.

??? You really do overestimate your capabilities, don't you. A more accurate analogy of what you have done would be to try to link the falling of the apple to why it tastes the way it does. I.e. an irrelevancy. Your justifications are (mostly) irrelevant to that thread's discussion, and where not irrelevant they're just wrong. As explained in that thread.

If that world jad been radicuked then we would had missed big things in science. So just leave your perceotion and be positive for science to really add somethiing to it. By doubting new indications, you can be big looser of science.

Ah, there we go, the Gallileo Gambit again.
If what you post is demonstrably crap, it will be pointed out to you that it is crap, as I have done, repeatedly in that other thread. You have been weighed and measured, and have been found sorely lacking.

I am not going to reoeat or surge on thise 6 justifications now it is upto you to evaluate those indications yourself if really a follower of science. Good luck.

I have evaluated those justifications. Repeatedly for you. I have explained repeatedly to you why they do not support that thread's discussion, or are just wrong. You have ignored, and continue to ignore, the criticisms levelled against those so-called "justifications".
That is why I call you a troll. It is because you are one. And you will be treated like one for as long as you continue to be one.

 

[exchemist]

Then you need glasses. And until you get your eyesight corrected you really shouldn't be driving.
It seems I'm certainly confusing you. But it's not difficult. What exactly are you struggling with? Because if all you can do is repeat your incorrect understanding, you're not going to improve your understanding.
You see, there you go, completely ignoring what you have been told and just repeating your flawed understanding. You really don't help yourself, you know.
ENERGY IS NOT INFORMATION.
Do I need to repeat that to you again?
A memory is the retention of information of something no longer experienced. Explain to me, if you are in any way capable, how the energy in water satisfies that notion of memory? Water has X energy, then loses some to the colder air, so now has Y (X > Y) energy. What information is being retained by the water about the energy it no longer has? Answer that, if you are capable. Or will you just be your trollish self and dismiss it as "confusing"?
If it is confusing you then maybe you need to ask yourself why. Is it perhaps because your current understanding, that you're trying to cling to, doesn't fit what you are being told? And that you lack the capacity to assimilate the new understanding? Or is it simple dishonesty on your part: putting your head in the sand and claiming "confusion" just so you can cling to your incorrect position?
ENERGY IS NOT INFORMATION.
Using something out of storage is not what makes a memory. A memory is the holding of the information of that which it no longer has/experiences.
Water is said to have a memory (albeit for pico-seconds) NOT because of the energy it has stored but because it retains the molecular structure it had when mixed with the substance it no longer contains.
You are now confusing the memory of facts that we have about the energy, with those things having memories. Again, do you not see the difference??
No! We (humans) have memories of facts that we establish about things. Those things in themselves don't necessarily do. You are continuing to confuse the two despite every effort to highlight this confusion to you, despite every effort to get you to understand. But I guess sometimes the horse really won't run, although it's yet to be established whether this is due to dishonest obstinacy or just lack of capability.
If you bother to go back and actually read what was written, it is clear that I understood what you wrote (although I leave room for the possibility that you didn't write what you meant), and used science and logic to explain to you why your justification was nothing of the sort (for existence of active ingredient). You have singularly failed to deal with those responses, and instead, in your dishonest and trollish ways, you just try to dismiss them.
All you're doing is displaying that dishonesty to everyone else, and confirming with yet more evidence that you are a troll.
??? You really do overestimate your capabilities, don't you. A more accurate analogy of what you have done would be to try to link the falling of the apple to why it tastes the way it does. I.e. an irrelevancy. Your justifications are (mostly) irrelevant to that thread's discussion, and where not irrelevant they're just wrong. As explained in that thread.
Ah, there we go, the Gallileo Gambit again.
If what you post is demonstrably crap, it will be pointed out to you that it is crap, as I have done, repeatedly in that other thread. You have been weighed and measured, and have been found sorely lacking.
I have evaluated those justifications. Repeatedly for you. I have explained repeatedly to you why they do not support that thread's discussion, or are just wrong. You have ignored, and continue to ignore, the criticisms levelled against those so-called "justifications".
That is why I call you a troll. It is because you are one. And you will be treated like one for as long as you continue to be one.

Yes I agree with you. Kumar is a troll. That's why I've mostly stopped responding to his provocations.

 

[KUMAR5]

Then you need glasses. And until you get your eyesight corrected you really shouldn't be driving.
It seems I'm certainly confusing you. But it's not difficult. What exactly are you struggling with? Because if all you can do is repeat your incorrect understanding, you're not going to improve your understanding.
You see, there you go, completely ignoring what you have been told and just repeating your flawed understanding. You really don't help yourself, you know.
ENERGY IS NOT INFORMATION.
Do I need to repeat that to you again?
A memory is the retention of information of something no longer experienced. Explain to me, if you are in any way capable, how the energy in water satisfies that notion of memory? Water has X energy, then loses some to the colder air, so now has Y (X > Y) energy. What information is being retained by the water about the energy it no longer has? Answer that, if you are capable. Or will you just be your trollish self and dismiss it as "confusing"?
If it is confusing you then maybe you need to ask yourself why. Is it perhaps because your current understanding, that you're trying to cling to, doesn't fit what you are being told? And that you lack the capacity to assimilate the new understanding? Or is it simple dishonesty on your part: putting your head in the sand and claiming "confusion" just so you can cling to your incorrect position?
ENERGY IS NOT INFORMATION.
..

How then electricity is stored in battery cells? It also gives information of volts in that cell say eg 1.5 volte? I have no doubt in 6 justifications and in that energy is also an information, can be absorbed, stored and emitted specifically.
You had also ignored one valid test study and one m controlled study which I posted oreviously and huge practical appearances which justified homeooathy, now I have no energy to go on reoeating these.
Therefore since we can not satisfy to each other, better to discontinue here. No use in trolling and in one sided discussions. Thanks for all odd and even.

 

[KUMAR5]

Yes I agree with you. Kumar is a troll. That's why I've mostly stopped responding to his provocations.

Sorry but odd perceotion and considering scientific understsndings as absolute and complete, is the main reason of getting such emotions in you. It will certainly distant you for getting something new. I shall not wish it.

 

[Sarkus]

How then electricity is stored in battery cells?

How something is stored is irrelevant.

It also gives information of volts in that cell say eg 1.5 volte?

Because we (humans) have put that information on the battery.
You are continuing to confuse energy, and information about (a particular store of) that energy. More wilful ignorance on your part, given that you have been advised of this previously.

I have no doubt in 6 justifications...

Your lack of doubt in what is incorrect is a significant weakness on your part.

... and in that energy is also an information, can be absorbed, stored and emitted specifically.

And you'd be wrong on these matters as well. Ah, well. One can only point you in the direction of the water trough, and even bring it right up to your feet, but it is you who must ultimately choose to drink.

You had also ignored one valid test study and one m controlled study which I posted oreviously and huge practical appearances which justified homeooathy, now I have no energy to go on reoeating these.

I don't disagree that poorly (not "valid") conducted tests on homeopathy can demonstrate an efficacy. That has never been disputed. But due to lack of control group, or the use of placebo etc, the tests you posted fall short of showing homeopathy acting no better than placebo. Note that noone has said that homeopathy does not work at all. It just doesn't have an efficacy beyond that of a placebo. I'm sure you were advised of this at the time, but if not, sure - my oversight. Consider yourself now advised.

Therefore since we can not satisfy to each other, better to discontinue here.

You're clearly incapable of satisfying anyone who disagrees with you. You just ignore everything you're told so that you can continue on your blinkered way, pushing your head further into the sand of ignorance.

No use in trolling and in one sided discussions.

I'm glad you finally realise: so now I expect you to stop trolling and actually engage in the discussion rather than ignore everything that goes against your belief.

Sorry but odd perceotion and considering scientific understsndings as absolute and complete, is the main reason of getting such emotions in you. It will certainly distant you for getting something new. I shall not wish it.

You are too funny!
You consider anything you disagree with as "odd perceotion [sic]".
Noone considers "scientific understandings as absolute and complete", but if you want to overturn current understanding then you're going to actually offer something that isn't just wishful thinking on your part. Just throwing notions around and playing the Galileo Gambit is not going to wash in any sensible discussion. As said, on these matters you have been weighed, measured, and found sorely lacking.
The "emotions" you perceive in others who respond to you are almost certainly because of your blatant dishonesty and tollish behaviour. Maybe they're acceptable in whichever other forums you play your games in, but here we at least try to have standards, standards that you fall significantly below.

 

[KUMAR5]

How something is stored is irrelevant.
Because we (humans) have put that information on the battery.
You are continuing to confuse energy, and information about (a particular store of) that energy. More wilful ignorance on your part, given that you have been advised of this previously...

Let us end it. Probably you are just accounting Kinetic energy and ignoring Potential energy, energy storage and information of energy in a substance. Ok let us enjoy our home ourselves.[/QUOTE]

 

[Sarkus]

Let us end it. Probably you are just accounting Kinetic energy and ignoring Potential energy, energy storage and information of energy in a substance. Ok let us enjoy our home ourselves.

Oh, FFS!! No, I am not just "accounting Kinetic energy". And once again you have simply, and dishonestly, ignored everything that I have painstakingly tried to explain to you.

You wilfully opt to remain ignorant. That's okay, everyone can decide for themselves what to learn. But you also troll this forum with that ignorance. That is not okay, even if there is an element of schadenfreude in seeing you so blissfully display it to everyone else.

 

[KUMAR5]

Oh, FFS!! No, I am not just "accounting Kinetic energy". And once again you have simply, and dishonestly, ignored everything that I have painstakingly tried to explain to you.

You wilfully opt to remain ignorant. That's okay, everyone can decide for themselves what to learn. But you also troll this forum with that ignorance. That is not okay, even if there is an element of schadenfreude in seeing you so blissfully display it to everyone else.

Finally, better also try to learn aparrt from just teaching from discussions on foruns esp with me. It will add. Best luck.