Hello all,

There can be some 'Good News'. By doing lot of discussions with a group skeptics & science learneds people(alike tigers), I think something very concrete about how homeopathic can work or how remedies can be effected by potentization process inspite no molecule of active substance can be present in higher potencies. You may read, study & understand this link, where so many concepts are discussed & lastly some concrete is already indicated but still yet to be presented clearly. It is intiated there, that let those science people study & present any logical & presentable theory in science--which they or anyone knowing some basics can present, now in consideration of those discussion. Pls just ignore 'this & that' or contradictory types talks (as common there & may be part of business of some there). You may also comment here, accordingly. I just indicate that we just degrade/degenerate the remedy substances alike we cook food properly--to make it effective or more effective.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...0&pagenumber=1

Best wishes.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

We can understand it as under:-

"By potentisation process>> Photons are emited>>absorbed>> re-emited >>absorbed.....>>some degradation occurs which makes remedy's substances differant in every potency. Photons emited & re-emitted by active substances can effect carriers accordingly, resulting carriers to get the effect/memory of active substancs which then go on multiplying subsequently & consequently. Photons emited by differant substances are differant.

This process somewhat resembles with this:-

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae569.cfm

P.s. If we measure potentised remedies & carrier on their exitation as on kirlian photography or microscopically--we should be able to note the differance.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

As a participant in the debate Kayveeh refers to, I unfortunately have to say that this is a sad example of what happens when you think you can pick information at your own discretion and piece it together in any way you please.

Any substance with a temperature above absolute zero emits photons constantly in the form of heat radiation. And unless it is entirely surrounded by something at absolute zero (probably such a place does not exist in the known universe) it also receives photons in the form of heat radiation.

When a liquid is shaken (like in succussion) some of the energy is converted to heat (through friction), so the amount of heat that the liquid gives off is slightly changed for a while (these are the photons Kayveeh is referring to). Obviously, this makes little difference to the normal situation and the change is less than the changes resulting from varying storage temperatures.

Only a few very special heat sensitive substances are changed by this, normal substances are not affected at all.

The remark about different substances giving off different kinds of photons is also taken totally out of contect. This comes from the fact that certain elements give off colored light when sufficiently heated (heated to temperatures where they are ionized and give off light, which typically means over 1000degC). It has nothing to do with the weak heat radiation at room temperature.

All this was pointed out to Kayveeh (as Kumar) repeatedly, but he choose not to listen.

The reference to "degradation" is an attempt to somehow fit entropy into the equation. Entropy is only relevant when working with closed systems, and obviously a vial of remedy is not a closed system, energy-wise. I will admit that this may not have been explained to Kayveeh, since most participants had given up at that point (and, frankly, I don't think it would have helped any).

Finally I'd like to acknowledge Kayveeh/Kumar's courage in entering fray at the JREF forum ("randiland"), but I must lament his inability to get anything constructive from it.


Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

As I have said elsewhere, scientific homeopathy , like military intelligence , is a contradiction in terms. Part of the art of homeopathy is learning to look out through the eyes of your patient.

Mr. Hans,

Bit worried for likely to be final outcome. You tried to oppose it as usual. All here knows your intentions & goal. Since, homeopathy in existing in mass & well distributed public since long all over the world with their least side and almost nil adverse & toxic effects being a natural & ancient way of healing--all these repeated patients & well educated practitionars in homeopathy, can't be taken as fools, illitrate or misguided esp. in the skeptic atmosphere created by you type of people & commercial & vested interest of modern science. If you were to be a true science person, you would had great curicity to find out the pure science of this well observed, well experianced, well practiced & well existed fact in mass public since long. Anyway, if you or science people could not provide sufficiemt technologies to check it in your science, it is your weakness & problem. Homeopathic community do not need your science in it as so it may also pollute it accordingly & similarily. Few people alike me & other true science people put their dedicated efforts just to satisfy their curicity & in service to humanity--whereas you just try to put obstructions in their way--which is very very bad both in homeopathy & in science. So just think & act accordingly & use your BIG creative ming & hard working body for the CREATIVE or PROGRESS purposes.

Anyway, these true advices may be useless for you, but I am just doing my duty.

Hello all,

It is in science that:-

When light enters a material, photons are absorbed by the atoms in that material, increasing the energy of the atom. The atom will then lose energy after some tiny fraction of time, emitting a photon in the process. This photon, which is identical to the first, travels at the speed of light until it is absorbed by another atom and the process repeats. The delay between the time that the atom absorbs the photon and the excited atom releases as photon causes it to appear that light is slowing down...
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae509.cfm

This process is also called refraction. It means that any media can alter the property of photons--probably cool them. If it is water, alcohol, lactose or sugar pills, these photons will effect these media or carriers. Since the constituents of these carriers are of low energy levels(being lower in atomic number) than active substances of homeopathic remedies--energy/photons will move from higher energy level to lower energy levels--leaving their effect/memory on carriers. Continious potentisation process changes these carriers & leave information on these--to be utilized on application or when again exited. All these you can read also in details at above link provided, of randiland. Just ignore as Isaid as most of them may just don't want so contradict. In short I just mention here as under:-

Energy: What we apply during potentisation>> Photons emitted>absorbed>re-emitted>absorbed....so on, due to orbit shifts>>higher energy photons of active substances(being higher in atomic number) moves towards lower energy photons of carriers(being lower in atomic numbers)>>making whole remedy's substance differant by photodegradation.

Information: made remedy's substances somewhat differant due to energy applied, used & photodegradation.

Application: Information/made remedy's substances somewhat differant due to energy applied, used & photodegradation exited on application due to body energy & effects as per informationsc stored in these.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

"Few people alike me & other true science people put their dedicated efforts just to satisfy their curicity & in service to humanity--whereas you just try to put obstructions in their way--which is very very bad both in homeopathy & in science."

Kumar, I have news for you: Science is not pulling silly ideas out of your hat. You have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about, sorry.

The only obstruction I put in your way is facts.


Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

hans is right. it is true, he does not know what a fact is, and does not seem to understand that facts don't speak for themselves, that instead they always present themselves in obfuscating contexts. for example, it is a "fact" that homeopathy has been shown to be no more effective than placebo. it is also a fact that the experiments that have shown this have measured homeopathy against an allopathic yardstick. yuk yuk yuk. useless facts.

nevertheless, hans is quite right that most of the speculative discussion concerning the scientific understanding of homeopathy is vain speculation. even if kv is correct in his speculations, it remains true that at the present time we lack the technology to confirm it.

hans' mistake is in thinking that he/she can effectively counter a theory that is grounded in unsubstantiatable speculation, by using counter-arguments that are likewise grounded in unsubstantiatable speculation. fact is, at present, the mechanisms of homeopathic action are unknown, and unmeasurable. and any discussion, while interesting, is pointless. what we need, is for someone in position to do so, to take that discussion and adapt it to an actual scientific research situation - and i speak of real research, basic research, laboratory research, not statistical sampling.

what is promising, however, is that there is serious scientific investigation ongoing around the world, offering precise measurements of action of homeopathic remedies, and their impact in specific biological systems, and doing so in experimental set-ups that are replicable. of course, replicable science, for these purposes, is superior to clinical practice ... and i include statistical research as an essentially clinical discipline, since its procedures are also not "replicable." after all, development of reliable knowledge of physical processes, on the basis of real scientific investigation, is not something to look cross-eyed at, unless one is prepared to close the patent office.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Heheh, and Bach continues, in spite of having repeatedly denied doing it, to claim that I am focussed on statistics.

I have an idea: Why don't one of you address just one fact. Any fact, your choice.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

how about the 5-6 questions i posed in the last thread, which you ran away from?

or the fact that your facts are open to interpretation.

or the fact that you have never responded to prior critiques of statistical research outcomes, instead insisting that i've never examined your findings.

or he fact that your own glib arguments against a speculative proposition is no more valid that our glib arguments for it?

"Heheh, and Bach continues, in spite of having repeatedly denied doing it, to claim that I am focussed on statistics."

when did i deny this? i don't deny it, and repeat it: you are focussed on and blinded by statistics. now you say you're not? that's news. get it straight, ok?

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

o, i almost forgot: TROLL ALERT.

honestly, hansel, are there no limits to the absurd depths you'll sink to, to generate division?

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.