Adsorption is just a fancy word you don't understand, but you think it sounds "science-y." It has nothing to do with whether or not pure water has any "memory" of a prior solute.
I'm working on a theory of Dark. I say that Dark is real and Light is an illusion. D+L=1 What do you think of my theory? I can address your question if you have any.
Whichever came/exist first that is real. Which came/exist first? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sorry but it is well known, understood and used in science. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adsorption I am also studing some supporting or catalyst type of role of water linked to it.
Then it can mean, it is more real than light. What created light, basically? Moreover light is an energy consuming entity but dark is not? We have to go deep into your theory. It is somehow banging my head with these questions:. 1. Dark being prime, can it relate to prime force or an cause to all 4 fundamental interactions,? 2. Can light be basically a ptoduct of dark? Obiously, light looks to move and apparant into dark only.
River, I read a little about water research but didn't understand it. It is my understanding that water takes the shape of whatever it is contained in. Is that memory??
I agree. I am merely saying that YOU do not understand it. So prove me wrong. Tell me (in your own words, not a copy/paste from Wikipedia) how adsorption will take pure water and turn it into medicine.
Initialky in ealy dilutions say upto 12C, active substances will be dissolved in water due to potentization process and their molecules will get adsorbed on glass bottle walls. Then those adsorbed molecules will keep on deadsorbing in all subsequent dilutions and mix with plain water. Few molecules of glass will also keep on sheding in water during this process. It will make plain water mix with these two types of molecules. So it will not be plain water but a solution. Water, aggressive shaking, additional pressure, more surface area of adsorbent i.e glass, changed temo(?) also has supporting or catslyst role in it for enhancing adsorption and desorption of other substances molecules. Here, due to adsorption and slow desorption of molecules, dilutions shall not follow Avogdro law. So it will be tsken as mokecular/information/memory presence if active n other substsnce in water in all potencies even beyond Avagdro. Okay satisfied?
OK then. In that case it's not plain water; it is water mixed with a solute. You get the same effect when you make soup, then you don't wash the pot, then you try to make Jell-O in the same pot. People will say "tastes like soup" because there is in fact soup in the water. However, the soup is not "adsorbed" - that's just a fancy term you like to use that you don't understand. It's just sitting there in a layer on the empty pot, ready to mix with the new batch of water that you add later. If you use dirty glassware, then yes - absolutely it will contaminate the water that you add. Brewers use this effect to "barrel age" their beers and increase their alcohol content - the alcohol from the walls of the barrel dissolve in the water and increase the ABV. That is not what homeopathy claims. You do not understand the term "adsorption" nor do you understand Avogadro's law. Thus your claim fails due to ignorance of the basic processes involved.
billvon go back to you-tube , water research . Experiments in the research and the results should change your mind .
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/water-memory.163742/ Water memory is the purported ability of water to retain a memory of substances previously dissolved in it even after an arbitrary number of serial dilutions. It has been claimed to be a mechanism by which homeopathic remedies work, even when they are diluted to the point that no molecule of the original substance remains. Water memory defies conventional scientific understanding of physical chemistry knowledge and is generally not accepted by the scientific community. In 1988, Jacques Benveniste published a study supporting a water memory effect amid controversy in Nature,[1] accompanied by an editorial by Nature's editor John Maddox[2] urging readers to "suspend judgement" until the results can be replicated. In the years following publication, multiple supervised experiments were run by Benveniste's team, the United States Department of Defense,[3] BBC's Horizon programme,[4] and other researchers, but no team has ever reproduced Benveniste's results in controlled conditions. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
