Badlyshavedmonkey equation is dissproved!

were you aware of the equation? water sugar to heal and such! or something. and if you do not "dr" me then how can you prove my rupees?

also, homeopathy is a fraud.
 
Can someone give the link to what exactly BSM posted, and where he corrected it?

Rolfe.
 
Garrette said:
My deepest apologies for assuming I could take meaning from what you yourself posted.

I will not make that mistake again, I assure you.
Click to expand...

Wait, it's worse than that. You didn't take part in the discussion, therefore you are not aware of ANYTHING! It's like achieving enlightenment, only in reverse.

*plays Coma by Guns n' Roses*
 
Bah. I find awareness and enlightenment tend to diminish my enjoyment of weekend sports. I'll take me as I am.
 
I said, you did not participate in the old discussion threads. If I hurt you I say sorry. Please accept my applogy.
 
Dr. A Sheikh said:
I said, you did not participate in the old discussion threads. If I hurt you I say sorry. Please accept my applogy.
Click to expand...
Sheikh,

You don't seem particularly to be be joining in your own thread.

I wonder, could you explain the equation you say was wrong, and then explain what was wrong with it both before and after its correction?

Just thought that might help move things along.

Also, you haven't changed your signature yet, could you do that too? Thanks.
 
Dr. A Sheikh said:
please post that long equation here. I am unable to find at this forum.
Click to expand...
YOU brought it up, Sheikh, YOU post the equation.

And if you wouldn't mind explaining what was wrong with it before and after the corrections you mentioned, that would be interesting.

I don't have any qualifications in chemistry, so I'm an interested layman - I've followed all the discussion up till now though, so don't worry too much about technical language, Doctor. But if you could post the equation you mean, and your understanding of the error, the correction, its current status, and why
This proves that Dr. MAS was right
Click to expand...
I'd be very interested.

Thanks.
 
Dr. A Sheikh:

The quotation and the correction is here:
Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
MAS, let's say you have a 1ml of 1 molar solution of Na2SO4 solution. In 1 litre you would have 6.022 x 1023 of each of the component moieties of Na2SO4. In 100ml you will have 6.022 x 1022.

If you want to use this as the basis for your next 1 in 100 dilution you will draw 1ml into a pipette and add 99ml water.

If the solution was well-mixed when you drew up that 1ml it will contain 6.022 x 1020 of each of the components of Na2SO4.

You have suggested that there may be some other number drawn up.

How many? What are the chances that the aspirate will contain a number substantially different from 6.022 x 1020?
Just in case this got buried under all the banter.

(Actually, BSM, that will be 2 x 6.022 x 1020 sodium ions, plus 6.022 x 1020 sulphate ions. So perhaps we should just concentrate on the sulphate ions for now.)

Mas, you may recall that in one of my posts that you didn't reply to, I went through the quesiton of pipetting accuracy. I pointed out that part of the homoeopathic procedure is succussion, which even at its least vigorous pretty much guarantees a more or less uniform mixing of the solution. I also pointed out that pipetting accuracy is something which is well understood, and that a careful worker should be able to manage less than 2% variation, while even a rather careless operator will still manage 5%.

So, given these facts, what are the chances that the 1ml that BSM is talking about will contain more than 6.323 x 1020 sulphate ions, or less than 5.721 x 1020? If you repeat the procedure 10 times, what are the chances that all 10 repetitions will all contain more than 6.022 x 1020 sulphate ions?
Click to expand...

Now, please explain what is wrong with it, and why it does not explain the effect of Avogadro's number on homeopathic preparations.

Or admit you were wrong.

If you don't do either, I shall make sure to tell the story about your dishonesty on the NCH forum.

And change your signature or point to where skeptics made the claim you cite.

NOW!

Hans
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom