Long time ago, Scientists observed certain properties of different matter and postulated that matter is composed of smallest particle. They named it ATOM. At that time, it was not actually possible to see the atom physically by naked eye by using any device but the nearest possibility to its direct evidence today is by using an electron microscope.

Even by using electron microscope you can only see the object (not real atom) of the size of an atom and not its real structure physically. A clear and accurate image of an object that is smaller than the wavelength of visible light cannot be obtained through electron microscope. The mass of atom is 1.661 x 10 (-27) kg. For seeing real object of mass of atom, one has to magnify the object about 25 million times. Which I think is not possible.

Previously we have seen schematic diagrams of atoms and now we are watching Shades pictures of graphite atoms by using electron microscope but not real atom.

An amazing idea about the size of atom would be from the fact that a full stop ( . ) may have two million atoms present in it.

Then how at that time it was made possible to see and believe on different atoms and their physical or chemical properties plus number of neutron and proton present in nucleus and number of electron in outermost shell. I want to tell you. It was all observational base.

Before coming to my actual point, I want to present an example with the context of present time.

See!

How did they (Scientist) come to know that atom is the smallest particle of element and how did they come to know such and such atom has such and such number of electron in the outer most orbit of atom. How did they come to know such and such number of neutron and proton are present in such and such atom of element? I want to tell you. It was purely all observational base.

How did they (Scientists) come to know? Let’s take an example to elaborate this point.

Chemical Scientists were known of the physical and chemical properties of different free existing elements like Sodium (Na) and Chlorine (Cl). They came to know the physical and chemical properties of single element after doing too many experiments. They observed the effect of reaction between two elements.

For example when they reacted Sodium and Chlorine. They were already known of the physical and chemical properties of Sodium and Chlorine atoms. After their reaction they observed new changes and got new compound having different physical and chemical properties as compared to Sodium and Chlorine.

They generalized a hypothesis that as sodium atom has such and such number of positive or negative electron and proton hence when it was reacted with Chlorine having such and such number of electron and proton in Chlorine atom. A new product Sodium Chloride (Na Cl) having different atomic structure and properties was formed.

Due the interaction of Sodium (unique atomic structure and properties) and Chlorine (unique atomic structure and properties) a new compound Na Cl was formed which had new unique atomic structure and properties. How did new product Sodium Chloride was formed?

The method of formation of Sodium chloride was almost hypothetical base. As at that time no body physically had seen atom or number of electron or proton in any atom. It was all observational base but purely logical according the previous true available information regarding the sub-atomic particles of each element.

Now let’s go back again at the time when Nucleus was discovered.

It was Rutherford, who first disclosed that there is some solid mass (NUCLEOUS) in the atom. At that time, no body believed him. At that time no body has seen ATOM too with naked eyes or under any microscope. Scientists were relying upon observations and results, when nucleus in atom was discovered.

For proving his statement, Rutherford performed an experiment in order to prove his outcome. As he was not in a position to show nucleus in an atom physically to any body. What he did. He performed a very classical and logical experiment and proved his verdict via observation and conclusion.

A beam of alpha particles was directed onto a gold foil target through a pinhole in lead plate. A photographic plate or a screen coated with zinc sulphide was used as a detector. Whenever an alpha particle struck the screen, a flash of light was produced at that point. It was observed that most of the particle went through the foil undeflected. Some were deflected at fairly large angles and a few were deflected backward.

Rutherford PROPOSED (here he did not show nucleus in atom physically just proposed due its experimental based observation) a tiny NUCLEUS is surrounded by an appropriate number of electron.

Homeopathically the conclusion of this experiment is Rutherford proved presence of nucleus in the atom through experiment and via observation and not through physical means. Still we can’t see nucleus physically but we know the properties of atom and nucleus particles (sub-atomic mass) through observation which is logical and true.

In the same way homeopathic dilution’s influence can be seen through observation and not by physical means. If some one asks you to prove homeopathic dilution then presently we don’t have any technique to prove our homeopathic dilutions by using any device or by means of showing physiological exchange in the body.

We can only prove our dilution’s true status though observation and their affects by applying them over the sick. But I strongly believe that there is some physical matter present in homeopathic dilutions of Zinc met 200 and Aconite cm. We cannot prove yet but we have their true results, which we received after doing so many experiments on healthy as well as sick individuals.

If somebody says to us to show the physical status of these dilutions or to present methods of interaction of these dilutions with the chemicals found in the body then we can only say first show us the physical matter of proton and neutron in nucleus or simply the nucleus. They will only show you their observational base results via doing experiments just like Rutherford did and we have also the right of showing observational results by applying on sick individuals. When they will show us physical mass of nucleus, at that time we would be able to show them physical behaviour of homeopathic dilutions.

Wait for the time to come, when they (Scientist) will be able to show us physical mass of nucleus then INSHA ALLAH (by the grace of GOD) we will be able to prove our physical nature of homeopathic dilution and its interaction with the chemicals found in our body.

Now, the complete picture about homeopathic dilution is in front of you. It is your judgment, how do you take this issue, whether homeopathic dilutions have physically any substance in the form of atom, molecule, energy, mole or subatomic particles etc or it has merely a placebo effect. Is homeopathy is a fraud or not …..

To me, homeopathic dilutions have physical nature. Each potency of a different dilution has different physical and chemical properties. These dilutions have unique matter and chemical structure. In which form I don’t know. These dilutions have complete physiological action in the body chemistry. How does it happen? I don’t know

__________________
Homeopath

Homeopath Arshad Sheikh,

Good and robust explanation

But I don’t know what do you mean by When you say according to avogadro’s law there is no atom or molecule of actual medicine.

For understanding your dry scientific article, I have read this article many times. You should compete for 1 million dollar prize money offered by Rudi.

[ 24. December 2002, 03:57: Message edited by: Azra ]

Sheikh,

I am really impressed that we have such talented homeopaths in our homeopathic community, which have positive approach in solving the phenomenon of homeopathic dilutions.

It is a surprise that we cannot see nucleus by physical means.

Any further comment?

__________________
Dr. Inam Ullah Mirza, DHMS, MD, Ph.D
Member National Council for Homoeopathy *NCH*
& Chairman Research Committee
Ministry of Heatlh, Govt of Pakistan

Hello Arshad Sheikh,

I agree with your statement that the status of homeopathic dilution is not yet known. So for we have read many suppose theories but non of them completely satisfy the true status of homeopathic dilutions.

When I first read the title of this thread, I thought I should not enter this thread. It is all fraud people are trying to discredit homeopathy.

But when I read your good article, I come to know it is good explanation for lay practitioners. YOu presented good scientific thougths.

Yes, I agree with your last statement. Homeopathy is not fraud. Judgment is with people who think its rules are funny in nature.

Thanks for the article.

I presented my views. It is upto you how do you see it. My points are very much clear.

I am grateful to everyone for their valuable comments on all my posts. thanks again.

__________________
Homeopath

Darling Arshad,

In your judgment homeopathy is not fraud.

I will strongly oppose you. You notified us shocking clarification and scandalous elucidation [img]redface.gif[/img]

[ 26. December 2002, 07:28: Message edited by: DR.MAS ]

__________________
Hafeez
Forum Pk

I would be very, very surprised, shocked, incredulous, even, if it were ever proved that homeopathic remedies in high potency had even a molecule of matter in them. What I do think will happen in the future is that we will be able to measure or 'see' things that are not matter, but energy patterns, for want of a better expression for the phenomenon. Non-matter affects matter all the time, and we see the results in matter and say that result is the thing in itself. But that's an incorrect assessment of the situation. Without true knowledge, we can only move in the wrong direction.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Shirly

He is talking about sub-atomic particles. Which can be transfered over solvent even after 200 or 1M potency but as for as the prescence oof atoms of the homeopathic medicine is concerned. It is not available.

Where is that info which you are talking about or pointing?

__________________
<b>Lady Dr. Meena</b>

Dear Meena,
What are you refering to regarding 'Where is that info'? Thanks.

__________________
Shirley Reischman