How homeopathy does work? - 4 Years of DHMS course.

[Rolfe]

And don't forget to endorse it with two phd doctors in the filed of chemistry

Well, Badly Shaved Monkey will do for one (I can email him), and I'll be the other, so we've got that bit surrounded....

Rolfe.

 

[Donks]

And don't forget to endorse it with two phd doctors in the filed of chemistry

Dave

I'll get it endorsed by my 3 dogs. They know more chemistry than Dr. MAS, so he won't be able to tell the difference.

 

[Mojo]

BTW: geni, Rolfe, BSM, Zep, could you check my math? I was in kind of a hurry.

To prevent them evading the question by nitpicking, it might be an idea to make it more explicit that you are talking about 1 litre of the preparation at each stage.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Thanks. I'll edit the post.

ETA: How does one pronounce your nickname?

I'm not sure if you understood the remark about the chances, but I'm working on that. I've got my statistics book in hand to figure it out. What I meant was that you give these numbers, but they're only the expected values. There is a chance that these numbers vary, and that chance gets bigger as the particles get more diluted. So my question would basically be: What are the odds that the number you give is off by 5%?
In the first 10 dilutions I'm sure I's a ludicrously small number, but I'd like to know precisely how small. So anyone who knows from the top of her/his head how to calculate this, do try! It's going to take me a while to get the statistics back into my head.

Also, my nickname is pronounced exactly like you think it's pronounced: Heth-eth-eth. Add 'eths' to taste.

 

[Donks]

I'm not sure if you understood the remark about the chances, but I'm working on that. I've got my statistics book in hand to figure it out. What I meant was that you give these numbers, but they're only the expected values. There is a chance that these numbers vary, and that chance gets bigger as the particles get more diluted. So my question would basically be: What are the odds that the number you give is off by 5%?
In the first 10 dilutions I'm sure I's a ludicrously small number, but I'd like to know precisely how small. So anyone who knows from the top of her/his head how to calculate this, do try! It's going to take me a while to get the statistics back into my head.

I'm trying to work it out, dunno if I can get it under the edit deadline.

Also, my nickname is pronounced exactly like you think it's pronounced: Heth-eth-eth. Add 'eths' to taste.

Cool. Didn't know if it varied. I've only known a couple of people from the Neatherlands and they oth said their language was close to "inarticulate grunts."

 

[Rolfe]

Let's start with 1 litre of 1 molar Na₂SO₄ solution, which has (by definition) 6.022 x 10²³ sulphate ions and 12.044 x 10²³ sodium ions. This will be the mother tincture.
For convenience I'll prepare one full litre of 18C remedy. At every step 10ml of the previous step is taken and succussed with 990ml of solvent.

First dilution: You now have: 6.022 x 10²¹ sulphate ions and 12.044 x 10²¹ sodium ions.

Second dilution: You now have: 6.022 x 10¹⁹ sulphate ions and 12.044 x 10¹⁹ sodium ions.

Third dilution: You now have: 6.022 x 10¹⁷ sulphate ions and 12.044 x 10¹⁷ sodium ions.

Fourth dilution: You now have: 6.022 x 10¹⁵ sulphate ions and 12.044 x 10¹⁵ sodium ions.

Fifth dilution: You now have: 6.022 x 10¹³ sulphate ions and 12.044 x 10¹³ sodium ions.

Sixth dilution: You now have: 6.022 x 10¹¹ sulphate ions and 12.044 x 10¹¹ sodium ions.

Seventh dilution: You now have: 6.022 x 10⁹ sulphate ions and 12.044 x 10⁹ sodium ions.

Eighth dilution:. You now have: 6.022 x 10⁷ sulphate ions and 12.044 x 10⁷ sodium ions.

Ninth dilution: You now have: 6.022 x 10⁵ sulphate ions and 12.044 x 10⁵ sodium ions.

Tenth dilution: You now have: 6.022 x 10³ sulphate ions and 12.044 x 10³ sodium ions.

Eleventh dilution: You now have: ~60 sulphate ions and ~120 sodium ions.

Twelfth dilution: You now have: ~60% chance of having 1 sulphate ion, plus ~1 sodium ions.

Thirteenth dilution: You now have: ~6.022 x 10^-1% chance of having 1 sulphate ion and ~12.044 x 10^-1% of having 1 sodium ion.

Fourteenth dilution: You now have: ~6.022 x 10^-3% chance of having 1 sulphate ion and ~12.044 x 10^-3% of having 1 sodium ion.

Fifteenth dilution: You now have: ~6.022 x 10^-5% chance of having 1 sulphate ion and ~12.044 x 10^-5% of having 1 sodium ion.

Sixteenth dilution: You now have: ~6.022 x 10^-7% chance of having 1 sulphate ion and ~12.044 x 10^-7% of having 1 sodium ion.

Seventeenth dilution: You now have: ~6.022 x 10^-9% chance of having 1 sulphate ion and ~12.044 x 10^-9% of having 1 sodium ion.

Eighteenth dilution: You now have: ~6.022 x 10^-11% chance of having 1 sulphate ion and ~12.044 x 10^-11% of having 1 sodium ion.

*All probabilities are approximate. I'll try to get more precise.

So there you go. 18C. You have a remote chance of having even 1 ion of the original mother tincture.

OK, seems fine as amended.

* Endorsed by Rolfe, PhD in biochemistry.

Edited to add: Given that a homoeopathic dose is very much less than a litre of the relevant potency, it's worth pointing out that the molecule-free limit is in practice reached significantly earlier. If for example we assume that a drop of potency on a sugar pill is 0.1ml, then we're 4 orders of magnitude different. We actually begin to run out of molecules at the 10th dilution step.

Now we need MAS to explain why he thinks this is not applicable to homoeopathic dilutions. Simply asserting that it isn't is not enough, come on MAS, we want the arithmetic.

Rolfe.

 

[Mouthfire]

i am among those who do not hide something or afraid of any person.

Oh, really??

Then you wouldn't mind addressing this thread: MAS's Qualifications

The original post was made a full month ago, and yet no answer yet from MAS. It appears as though MAS does nothing but run and hide away from questions he doesn't like.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Okay then, I've got it.

I used a approximation of a binomial distribution by a normal distribution. (If you do not agree, you're welcome to compute factorials of numbers up to avogadro's number. My computer says anything above 170! is infinite).
I didn't actually calculate all the chances, because in most cases it's so close to zero, I can't even begin to grasp the smallness, and it involves solving a lot of integrals, which is tedious work. My textbook supplies a table in which I can look up the chances for normal cases.
For clarity: In the following, sigma is the standard deviation: A measure for the variance in the distribution of probability.
My table reaches up to 3.49 sigma. The chance of that happening is indicated as 0.0002, and the chance decreases exponentially, to give you an idea.
Also, I used a mother tincture of one Mole solute in one litre of water.

At 1C, a 5% deviation from the expected value (see Donks' post) lies at 8.154*10⁹ sigma (Yes, eight billion sigma).

At 2C, a 5% deviation from the expected value lies at 8.149*10⁸ sigma.

At 3C, a 5% deviation from the expected value lies at 8.148*10⁷ sigma.

At 4C, a 5% deviation from the expected value lies at 8.148*10⁶ sigma.

At 5C, a 5% deviation from the expected value lies at 8.148*10⁵ sigma.

At 6C, a 5% deviation from the expected value lies at 8.148*10⁴ sigma.

At 7C, a 5% deviation from the expected value lies at 8148 sigma.

At 8C, a 5% deviation from the expected value lies at 814.8 sigma.

At 9C, a 5% deviation from the expected value lies at 81.48 sigma.

At 10C, a 5% deviation from the expected value lies at 8.148 sigma.
Remember, my tables indicate up to 3.49 sigma, and we're down to 60 particles. However we can now look up a chance since 1 particle more or less constitutes 1.6% deviation, so about 2.7 sigma. My book says the odds are 0.35% that there is one more particle, and of course also a 0.35% chance of one less. This amounts to 0.7% chance of seeing a deviation by one single particle.

At 11C, a 5% deviation from the expected value lies at 0.8148 sigma. But now we need a deviation of at least 0.4/0.6022 = 66% to actually find a single particle. This means that the chances of that happening are at 66/5*0.8148 = 10 sigma. This is a much smaller chance than donks gives of course, but this about taking a random 100ml sample out of 3.3 litres with a fair chance of having one particle in it, and pouring it back. Apparently you have to do this a ludicrous amount of times to be sure you actually sampled the particle once.

Eta: Before I forget, What does this mean?

The conclusion:

You will not find significant deviations from 1/100th of the solute, if you sample 1/100th of the total, ever. Until of course you arrive at the double digit numbers of solute particles, and when you get down to the point where you expect to find less than one particle, you can forget about finding particles altogether.

 

[Dr. MAS]

Is this a new and different prize to the "Prove homeopathy is paranormal" one?

Yes, because non-of the skeptic applied earlier they all failed to prove anything. Now I put it more easier.



Incidentally, your request has already been answered here multiple times,


And I multiple times rejected your theory based ideas which has no practical applications. If you say, no it has, you have a chance to bring them on paper (black&white) and send it to me. I will also pay the postage charges. Along with your name and address. Please endorse your theory with Ph.D Doctors with complete address.




And "FTJ" is...what?

FAZIL TIBB & JIRAHAT (four year course)

And would you be kind enough to share any one or more of your papers you mentioned with us? I'm sure we would be hugely enlightened about your huge knowledge of homeopathy.

Dear sir, we have all the answers of your questions and we can also prove it. Where we have to prove homeopathy in USA? Is there any chance to prove it in Pakistan? Can you send your representative. I will bear your expenditures.


Incidentally, I note that your avatar has now changed from some chap with a small beard and moustache (plus horse-cart!) to a clean-shaven person of a completely different face. In other words, you are now a different person, it would appear! I wonder if I can find that face somewhere else...

Few things are secret. If I would say anything, then...... Please keep quite.

Yes

 

[Dr. MAS]

Sadly, BSM tells me he is going to stop posting because he can no longer trust himself to stay within the board's rules of civility as regards the MAS collective and Kumar.

Ask him not to post but send your theory to me on papers.

So, just for the record, I think it should be stated here that Badly Shaved Monkey has a PhD degree in Molecular Biology from the University of Cambridge.

he does not hold a Ph.D degree. I challenge you if he sends his theory (above) to me with his complete address. I will assure you the university will cancel his degree because a person who does not know the ABC of avogadro's application how dare he can claim of holding Ph.D


In order to achieve a PhD it is necessary to do a great deal of practical research, at a level which it seems MAS cannot even begin to comprehend. Perhaps it is MAS who needs to enrol in primary school.

Read above and go a head.

Sorry, I just thought that needed saying.

Rolfe.

 

[Dr. MAS]

Oh, really??

Then you wouldn't mind addressing this thread: MAS's Qualifications

The original post was made a full month ago, and yet no answer yet from MAS. It appears as though MAS does nothing but run and hide away from questions he doesn't like.

I do not hide anything. Ask to badlyshaved monkey to come like that if he holds ph.D (mc)

Picture, name, qualification, experience, occupation, addresses and phone nos. I am waiting.

 

[Mojo]

Ask him not to post but send your theory to me on papers.

It seems to have escaped your notice, but the purpose of this thread, (which you started, remember?) is for you to explain to us how homeopathy works. Not for anyone to explain their theories to you.

 

[Mojo]

I do not hide anything.

Good. You should be perfectly willing to say where and when you obtained the qualifications you have claimed then. This thread would be an appropriate place for you to do this.

 

[Gaga]

And I multiple times rejected your theory based ideas which has no practical applications. If you say, no it has, you have a chance to bring them on paper (black&white) and send it to me. I will also pay the postage charges. Along with your name and address. Please endorse your theory with Ph.D Doctors with complete address.

and multiple times refused to explain WHY it hasn't a practical application. Would you mind doing it?

Gaga, Dr. Phd. Grand Poohbah, Only Ruler of the Known World
(hey, he started the qualification race...)


edited für errori de spelling

 

[Donks]

So MAS makes an appearance and doesn't bother replying to my post? I put some work into it, you know? Not quite as much as H'eth<span style="font-size: 11px; line-height: normal">eth</span><span style="font-size: 9px; line-height: normal">eth</span><span style="font-size: 7px; line-height: normal">eth</span><span style="font-size: 5px; line-height: normal">eth</span><span style="font-size: 3px; line-height: normal">eth</span><span style="font-size: 1px; line-height: normal">eth</span> but still...

 

[Mojo]

It's interesting that in his current incarnation (new avatar and all), he only seems to have found this thread, and none of the other ones he used to post in.

 

[DrDave]

Mas,

Why the fascination with other peoples qualifications, photo's phone numbers, addresses?

You are the one coming here with an extraordinary claim, that you say you can prove and explain. So why not go ahead?

You question whether we are qualified enough to understand the explanations, as has been said before many of us have PhDs and/or degrees, so don't let that put you off.

In fact, it is a nice test of how well you understand a subject to have to explain it to someone who is not already familiar with it. I think that I could have a stab at explaining my PhD project to anyone who had completed even basic school chemistry (e.g. about age 15+). I would pick an area to begin, and then expand outwards, answering the resultant questions as I went.

You made the first post, which raised a number of questions, why not pick up again by answering some of these, and you can get back on track with your explanations.

And finally - since you have rejected Badly Shaved Monkey et als calculations, perhaps you could let us know how you would calculate the number of molecules at each step?

Dave

 

[Zep]

Is this a new and different prize to the "Prove homeopathy is paranormal" one?

MAS: Yes, because non-of the skeptic applied earlier they all failed to prove anything. Now I put it more easier.

Actually, they didn't apply because you made it clearly impossible to do so. A number of us did actually want to apply, but all we got were your impossible demands about posting stuff to some backwater in Pakistan, where a bunch of unknown woofle-heads were going to sit in judgement on theses on subjects they obviously hadn't the first faintest idea about. All hidden on a private message board until it was way too late to reveal the truth - that the contest was a pure setup scam where you played fast and loose with the rules of the contest. Yes, MAS, you can pretend and huff up here all you like - we know the reality of your childish schemes to avoid answering questions!

Anyway, if this really IS a new prize, and you really DO want to be fair about it this time, how about you publish the details in full in a public place on the Internet, and make it properly scientific this time. And then provide a link here in this forum directly to it, NOT just to your silly NCH website. Can you be trusted to be fair and do this?
<hr>
Incidentally, your request has already been answered here multiple times,

MAS: And I multiple times rejected your theory based ideas which has no practical applications. If you say, no it has, you have a chance to bring them on paper (black&white) and send it to me. I will also pay the postage charges. Along with your name and address. Please endorse your theory with Ph.D Doctors with complete address.

And yet you offer no explanation whatsoever for your rejection, except for some dreadfully wrong woofle about "probability law". Well, you can see above that people way smarter than you have already investigated and published here a reliable and checked use of statistical probability of homeopathic dilution process that shows your own notions of probability are fanciful at best, downright stupidity at worst. Whch shows to me that you do not really have the knowledge necessary to graduate high-school, let alone apply for and receive a PhD in anything whatsoever.
<hr>
And "FTJ" is...what?

MAS: FAZIL TIBB & JIRAHAT (four year course)

Four year course in what? I thought you had finished your courses and had graduated.
<hr>
And would you be kind enough to share any one or more of your papers you mentioned with us? I'm sure we would be hugely enlightened about your huge knowledge of homeopathy.

MAS: Dear sir, we have all the answers of your questions and we can also prove it. Where we have to prove homeopathy in USA? Is there any chance to prove it in Pakistan? Can you send your representative. I will bear your expenditures.

You have all the answers and can prove them? Oh, well then - that's excellent. So how about sharing your proof with us here and now? And you don't need to go anywhere, nor us go to you. Simply prove yourself right here on the international Internet by giving us what you promised at the top of this thread that you would give us - a course in homeopathy. If you refuse, we can only assume you are lying about it everything - your qualifications, your "proofs", homeopathy, everything.
<hr>
Incidentally, I note that your avatar has now changed from some chap with a small beard and moustache (plus horse-cart!) to a clean-shaven person of a completely different face. In other words, you are now a different person, it would appear! I wonder if I can find that face somewhere else...

MAS: Few things are secret. If I would say anything, then...... Please keep quite.

"Quiet". Really, you're the one who changed your avatar. It used to be the same picture as what appears to be a genuine Dr MAS at the NCH website, but now it is someone completely different. But I know who that person is too! Which tells me you are probably NOT the real Dr MAS at all, but one of his "students" who likes trying to be a silly little troll. Which explains a lot around here lately!

 

[Rolfe]

he does not hold a Ph.D degree. I challenge you if he sends his theory (above) to me with his complete address. I will assure you the university will cancel his degree because a person who does not know the ABC of avogadro's application how dare he can claim of holding Ph.D

Mas, I know Badly Shaved Monkey, and his wife (and two children). They are personal friends of mine. They are also professional colleagues. This means that if I had any doubt at all that he was telling the truth when he told me he had a PhD from the University of Cambridge, it is easy for me to look him up in the Register of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to check. And there is his entry, right in front of me now. "27/6/87 VetMB Cambridge: MA, VetMB, PhD, MRCVS" And I know that it is necessary to prove to the RCVS that you have any qualification before they will include it in your listing in the Register - it was the same for my qualifications, including my PhD. Appearing in that book is absolute proof that you really do have the degree.

Now, you have to explain where he was wrong in his explanation of the application of Avogadro's number. You cannot simply tell someone that you disagree with their calculation, you have to point out where the mistake is.

So far you have not done that.

I do not hide anything. Ask to badlyshaved monkey to come like that if he holds ph.D (mc)

Picture, name, qualification, experience, occupation, addresses and phone nos. I am waiting.

Why do you ask for picture and name and address and phone number? (The last three of these are also in the Register entry in front of me of course, but I have absolutely no intention of revealing them here.) We have not asked you for any of these. You have volunteered some of them, but the fact that your picture keeps changing rather suggests the evidence isn't worth anything anyway.

We merely, in the other thread, asked where you studied for your qualifications, and how long each course was, and the year in which they were awarded, and which subjects you had to study. Most posters here who are unwilling to reveal their names and phone numbers will give that information - I have already posted most of mine for you, though you appeared to ignore it.

However, what relevance are qualifications to whether or not someone's argument is actually right? The question is, is the arithmetic about Avogadro's number that has been presented to you right, or not? You say you reject it. But you have not explained on what grounds. Until you do, your rejection is meaningless.

Donks and H'ethetheth have both posted clear calculations explaining the exact position with regard to the numbers of molecules expected in a litre of a range of homoeopathic dilutions. You wanted this countersigned by two PhDs in appropriate subjects, and I and Dr. Badly Shaved Monkey have done this (I imagine DrDave would make a third if necessary).

So now, please address these posts, and if you disagree, please explain where you think the calculations are wrong. If you can't, we will have to conclude that it is you who has not completed primary school education.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

Mas, I know Badly Shaved Monkey, and his wife (and two children). They are personal friends of mine. They are also professional colleagues. This means that if I had any doubt at all that he was telling the truth when he told me he had a PhD from the University of Cambridge, it is easy for me to look him up in the Register of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons to check. And there is his entry, right in front of me now. "27/6/87 VetMB Cambridge: MA, VetMB, PhD, MRCVS"

Just bumping this thread to say that Badly Shaved Monkey tells me I was mistaken about the source of his PhD. Although his MA and VetMB degrees are indeed from the University of Cambridge, as recorded in the RCVS Register, his PhD was from the (equally prestigious) University of London.

Rolfe.