Science of Water Memory?

[KUMAR5]

There's a simple physical reality.

Are there molecules of the substance there? Then the substance exists. Are there NO molecules of the substance there? Then it does not exist and has no effect.

Very, very simple.

Pure woo believed only by gullible fools.

Please do not bother about effect or no effect in this topic. Simply bother about that substsnces exist in higher potences other than plain water. It is already justified that substsnces exist in higher potencies and memory of water had not traced these. Intentionally or not, I do not know.

 

[DaveC426913]

Another concern was that how experimenters declared higher potencies are nothing other than plain water which has came to be false claim.

Who says it's a false claim? All you have is speculation.

 

[KUMAR5]

Who says it's a false claim? All you have is speculation.

But when molecules of sctive snd other substsnce in higher potentized remedies are justified, it does not remained plain water.

 

[DaveC426913]

But when molecules of sctive snd other substsnce in higher potentized remedies are justified, it does not remained plain water.

Right. So. Things established:

1. When a solution of water and an active substance of interest is repeatedly diluted, it may or may not eliminate every last molecule of the substance of interest. < Self-evident.
2. Human smell and taste are not accurate sensors for determining the existence or absence of a substance in trace amounts. < Fact.
3. If the diluted water contains traces of the SoI, then it's not pure water. < Self-evident.
4. If the diluted water does not contain traces of the SoI, then it is ostensibly only water remaining. < Self-evident.
5. Every active substance has a therapeutic dose; that is the dose defined to be effective. < Definition.

Have I missed any relevant points here?

 

[billvon]

But when molecules of sctive snd other substsnce in higher potentized remedies are justified, it does not remained plain water.

If there is something dissolved in it, it is not plain water.

If there is nothing dissolved in it, it is plain water.

Very simple. Do you disagree?

 

[KUMAR5]

Right. So. Things established:

1. When a solution of water and an active substance of interest is repeatedly diluted, it may or may not eliminate every last molecule of the substance of interest. < Self-evident.

Here, some problem. It may not eliminate every molecule of Sol because of this adsorption theory.

2. Human smell and taste are not accurate sensors for determining the existence or absence of a substance in trace amounts. < Fact.

If taste and smell resembles to taste and smell of Sol, it can justify its presence.

3. If the diluted water contains traces of the SoI, then it's not pure water. < Self-evident.

Right.

4. If the diluted water does not contain traces of the SoI, then it is ostensibly only water remaining. < Self-evident.

Right.
.

5.Every active substance has a therapeutic dose; that is the dose defined to be effective. < Definition.

Right but every system can have its own justification for it. In few system like accupunture there is no quantity of dose at all. It works only by stimulation of physiological activities.

Have I missed any relevant points here?

 

[DaveC426913]

Have I missed any relevant points here?

No.
You agreed with all five of my points.

 

[KUMAR5]

If there is something dissolved in it, it is not plain water.

If there is nothing dissolved in it, it is plain water.

Very simple. Do you disagree?

I agree on it. If something is dissolved or get disolved or exist in water then it is not plain water.

 

[DaveC426913]

I agree on it. If something is dissolved or get disolved or exist in water then it is not plain water.

It took 86 posts to get here?

 

[KUMAR5]

No.
You agreed with all five of my points.

How I agreed?

 

[DaveC426913]

How I agreed?

You literally quoted each of my five points individually, confirming that you agree with each one. It can't be more plain than that.
Are you trolling?

 

[exchemist]

You literally quoted each of my five points individually, confirming that you agree with each one. It can't be more plain than that.
Are you trolling?

I think probably, yes.

 

[KUMAR5]

You literally quoted each of my five points individually, confirming that you agree with each one. It can't be more plain than that.
Are you trolling?

Sorry, I am not able to understand your claim. I simply clarified your 5 points in full.

Anyway, coming on to OP. As far as I remember and as far as I can understsnd, main claim from science community was that water come back in its origional structure instantly after active substance is diluted out. But when active snd other substsnce still exist in that water consistently, how it will come back to its origional form of plain water? Here, where memory of water will still exist consistently. Not so?

 

[Dywyddyr]

But when active snd other substsnce still exist in that water consistently

But that is NOT the case:

after active substance is diluted out

 

[KUMAR5]

But that is NOT the case:

Why not? All interactions and modificatíons are not dependent on chemical intersctions but can also depend on physical, electrostatic etc forces also. Read it

Similar to surface tension, adsorption is a consequence of surface energy. In a bulk material, all the bonding requirements (be they ionic, covalent or metallic) of the constituent atoms of the material are filled by other atoms in the material. However, atoms on the surface of the adsorbent are not wholly surrounded by other adsorbent atoms and therefore can attract adsorbates. The exact nature of the bonding depends on the details of the species involved, but the adsorption process is generally classified as physisorption (characteristic of weak van der Waals forces) or chemisorption (characteristic of covalent bonding). It may also occur due to electrostatic attraction From Wikipedia Adsorption link.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry, I am not able to understand your claim. I simply clarified your 5 points in full.

Exactly.

To review:

Have I missed any relevant points here?

No, you have not missed any relevant points. So yes, we are in full agreement.

 

[DaveC426913]

As far as I remember and as far as I can understsnd, main claim from science community was that water come back in its origional structure instantly after active substance is diluted out.

No one claims that.

That is a matter of experiment and verification.

But when active snd other substsnce still exist in that water consistently, how it will come back to its origional form of plain water?

Fer cryin' out loud. We're going around in circles.

If some of the substance remains then the water is not pure.
If none of the substance remains then the waster is pure.

Here, where memory of water will still exist consistently. Not so?

Not so.
Because water does not have a memory.

 

[KUMAR5]

Exactly.

To review:


No, you have not missed any relevant points. So yes, we are in full agreement.

No, That was part of your post. I haf just left it unanswered. I have not replied or asked it. Misinderstsnding.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, That was part of your post. I haf just left it unanswered. I have not replied or asked it. Misinderstsnding.

That was a direct quote from you.
Last line of post 84:

Have I missed any relevant points here?

 

[KUMAR5]

No one claims that.

That is a matter of experiment and verification.


Fer cryin' out loud. We're going around in circles.

If some of the substance remains then the water is not pure.
If none of the substance remains then the waster is pure.


Not so.
Because water does not have a memory.

In real sense this impure water in dose of active substance or of Sol?
If water can not have the memory at all, what was the sense of claiming or checking it?