One Million Rupees Offer to prove "Homeopathy is Paranormal"

[steenkh]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science/secret/trick of homeopathy/TRS

Why don't you measure molecular presence in remedies & glass of boteles pestle & mortar?

You are effectively saying that because homoeopaths are so lousy at clening their bottles, pestles and mortars, there will be leftover remedies present in all concentrations, and you will also contaminate one remedy with another when you are using the same bottles, pestles and mortars to prepare different remedies. So in future, homoeopaths should be more interested in what was previously prepared in those bottles if they want to cure some ailment?

 

[Zep]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science/secret/trick of homeo

Oh, I'm interested ...... in facts. I'm not interested in unfounded speculations.

I'm not interested in what you feel or believe may happen. You have shown repeatedly and consistently that you have no idea of physics.

Just as an example, I have, some time ago, explained why we cannot see molecules. Yet you, above, persist in assuming that we can see them. Not only you haven't got any education, but you refuse to get educated.


Hans

If so, Hans, after a certain point, why bother continuing to try?

But given that even earthworms will learn simple responses faster than this, and they do, doesn't that suggest that Kumar is NOT a simple Indian village idiot at all, but actually a persistent troll?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science/secret/trick of homeo

If so, Hans, after a certain point, why bother continuing to try?

But given that even earthworms will learn simple responses faster than this, and they do, doesn't that suggest that Kumar is NOT a simple Indian village idiot at all, but actually a persistent troll?

Personally, I think Kumar is a persistant simple village idiot troll.

So why continue? I don't know. My best guess is that we (after all, I'm far from alone ) use Kumar as some random riddle generator. Note that when he asks a qustion that makes sense in itself (not in the context he is asking it, usually), he generally gets good replies. Then as he goes out his usual tangents, most turn away.


Hans

 

[Zep]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science/secret/trick

Note that when he asks a qustion that makes sense in itself (not in the context he is asking it, usually), he generally gets good replies. Then as he goes out his usual tangents, most turn away.

I reckon he works like that purely to bait us into talking to him again.

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science/secret/trick of homeopathy/TRS

You are effectively saying that because homoeopaths are so lousy at clening their bottles, pestles and mortars, there will be leftover remedies present in all concentrations, and you will also contaminate one remedy with another when you are using the same bottles, pestles and mortars to prepare different remedies. So in future, homoeopaths should be more interested in what was previously prepared in those bottles if they want to cure some ailment?

Let us first agree that there will be some penetrated left over after any potency alike paint on a bottle painted inside. What do you say about it?

What is this? Can molecules penetrate & stay in this for long?

 

[Ashles]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science/secret/trick

That, Kumar, would be an image from this page and is an example of specially designed controlled pore glass.

What is the comparison to normal glass out of interest?

 

[MRC_Hans]

Watch it, Kumar, because you are now heading into serious trouble. If you want to imply that the effect of homeopathic remedies is the effect of molecules trapped in glass porosities, you are opening a Pandora's box of troubles. Because then you have to explain how you avoid the effect of anything that has previously been in contact with that glass, and since we are down to lef-over molecules, how water impurities, and random pollution is not playing a role, etc, etc. With your present approach, what logic might have been in your previous crude/potentized argument collapses totally.

Hans

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science/secret/trick

That, Kumar, would be an image from this page and is an example of specially designed controlled pore glass.

What is the comparison to normal glass out of interest?

I am bit unclear, what bold letter below mean:

"These are snapshots from Grand Canonical Monte Carlo simulations of adsorption in a model porous glass of 50% porosity and 4.95 nanometer mean pore size; the empty glass is shown above. Clicking on a frame will load a larger version of the same thing. The snapshots are taken at progressively higher external pressures, from left to right. Simulation details and color scheme are as above."

Are three images mentioned there not for porus & plain glasses?

 

[Rolfe]

Also, he has to explain why this effect only hapens to homoeopaths, and can be shown to be completely absent when immunologists perform the same repeated diluting exercise under almost identical circumstances.

Why does he keep asking us to measure things? If he's so clever, why can't he do it?

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Watch it, Kumar, because you are now heading into serious trouble. If you want to imply that the effect of homeopathic remedies is the effect of molecules trapped in glass porosities, you are opening a Pandora's box of troubles. Because then you have to explain how you avoid the effect of anything that has previously been in contact with that glass, and since we are down to lef-over molecules, how water impurities, and random pollution is not playing a role, etc, etc. With your present approach, what logic might have been in your previous crude/potentized argument collapses totally.

Hans

Let us first agree on that, molecules can be trappen in glass porosities & can be transfered slowly in all potencies--means molecular presence in higher potencies. Is it settled now?

 

[Kumar]

Also, he has to explain why this effect only hapens to homoeopaths, and can be shown to be completely absent when immunologists perform the same repeated diluting exercise under almost identical circumstances.

Why does he keep asking us to measure things? If he's so clever, why can't he do it?

Rolfe.

What immunologists actually perform?

I found something;

"Glass containers ......many are for common use, such as soft drink bottles...others are made from special glass formulas to make sure there will be no contamination or deterioration of blood, plasma, serums, abd chemicals stored in them."
(from The World Book Encyclopedia--Glass).

Few things are made as "Lab. Grade".

 

[Ashles]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science/secret/trick

I am bit unclear, what bold letter below mean:

"These are snapshots from Grand Canonical Monte Carlo simulations of adsorption in a model porous glass of 50% porosity and 4.95 nanometer mean pore size; the empty glass is shown above. Clicking on a frame will load a larger version of the same thing. The snapshots are taken at progressively higher external pressures, from left to right. Simulation details and color scheme are as above."

Are three images mentioned there not for porus & plain glasses?

I can't see any refernces to standard glass.
All the examples on that page appear to be specially designed prous glass.

Which one do you think is the normal glass?

These are snaphots of empty pore models of varying porosity and pore size, prepared for a recent paper on the structural properties of adsorbed liquids. The simulation cells are all 27 nanometers on each side, and the pore models themselves contain between 450,000 atoms and 630,000 atoms.

It doesn't appear you have chosen a very good page to illustrate... whatever it is you are trying to illustrate.

 

[Ashles]

Let us first agree on that, molecules can be trappen in glass porosities & can be transfered slowly in all potencies--means molecular presence in higher potencies. Is it settled now?

How porous is normal glass Kumar?

I think we can all agree that glass designed to be porous, is er porous (as per your link).

But how porous comparatively is normal glass? Do you actualy know? Or are you just guessing?

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science/secret/trick

I can't see any refernces to standard glass.
All the examples on that page appear to be specially designed prous glass.

Which one do you think is the normal glass?



It doesn't appear you have chosen a very good page to illustrate... whatever it is you are trying to illustrate.

No doubt it is not clear. What does it mean- "the empty glass is shown above"?

I searched whole internet but couldn't find porosity of plain glass except this. You may check & tell.

 

[steenkh]

Let us first agree on that, molecules can be trappen in glass porosities & can be transfered slowly in all potencies--means molecular presence in higher potencies. Is it settled now?

If it is so, then multiple dilutions will clean out the leftover molecules eventually. Do you really think there are leftover molecules at 200C? And if there are, then you could achieve exactly the same effect by using a clean bottle and only dilute to, say 10C!

What purpose exactly do you think the succusions and triturations have in this new theory of yours?

It also appears that if your theory is true, then is is possible to distinguish between a homoeopathic remedy and the solvent alone. So why don't the homoeopaths grab the JREF million?

 

[Ashles]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science/secret/t

No doubt it is not clear. What does it mean- "the empty glass is shown above"?

I searched whole internet but couldn't find porosity of plain glass except this. You may check & tell.

Have you read that page?

It is comparing "empty pore models" with pore models after "adsorbtion".

They are the same porous glass, the lower pictures are representations of the glass with liquid in and this is being compared with "the empty glass is shown above".

It is nothing to do with normal glass, and there is no way this could be interpreted so.

So I take it then you are admitting that you have absolutely no idea how porous normal glass is then?

 

[Rolfe]

What immunologists actually perform?

I already described this in detail in a previous post. Which I expect you didn't read. I'm tired of repeating myself, so why don't you just read back a few pages.

Proper scientific laboratories perform serial doubling dilutions all the time every day for very standard routine tests. Careful and accurate measurements show that the concentration of solutes in the dilutions decreases by 50% at each step exactly as would be predicted.

This is about as common knowledge as saying, grass is green and when the sun sets it gets dark. What is the point of these baseless speculations when you lack even this simple information?

And the reason you can't find anything about the porosity of normal glass is that it is not porous, as I have told you many times. It is chosen for delicate work in immunology precisely because of this property, though in fact a suitably-structured plastic often works just as well these days.

There is no carryover worth mentioning, Kumar. Are we agreed now?

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

I eddited & add in last post:

I found something;

"Glass containers ......many are for common use, such as soft drink bottles...others are made from special glass formulas to make sure there will be no contamination or deterioration of blood, plasma, serums, abd chemicals stored in them."
(from The World Book Encyclopedia--Glass).

Few things are made as "Lab. Grade".

I can't say, what type of glass was there during Dr.Hahn.'s time & what he used in practice? Anyway there should be no doubt about triturated remedies as tissue remedies.

 

[Ashles]

So will Kumar:

A) Blindly plough on with his bizarre 'it gets trapped in the non-existent pores' theory, ignoring all this new information about porosity?
B) Disappear from the thread for a while, then start a new equally baffling thread?
C) Completely change the subject of this thread (with a sickening sound of gear crunching)?
D) Admit he doesn't know anything about glass porosity and that he was just guessing. Then thank Rolfe for clearing up his misconceptions on the subject?

Press you keypads now...

 

[Kumar]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Science/secr

Have you read that page?

It is comparing "empty pore models" with pore models after "adsorbtion".

They are the same porous glass, the lower pictures are representations of the glass with liquid in and this is being compared with "the empty glass is shown above".

It is nothing to do with normal glass, and there is no way this could be interpreted so.

So I take it then you are admitting that you have absolutely no idea how porous normal glass is then?

I am trying this from you. How insects climb on a vertical plain glass? How water stick to it? How a glass hold paint as on back of mirror?