Static Energy?Electricity?

We certainly seem to be a long way now from static electricity and static electric potential energy.

But that is because our poster Kumar keeps making odd references to "remedies", as if he thinks static electricity has something to do with medicine.

If he ever responds to post 71, we might find out what he is on about. If not, then I suspect this thread has run its course.
 
exchemist said:
Firstly, you appear to be referring to action and reaction in Newtonian mechanics, i.e. in Newton's Third Law. The "action" and "reaction"Newton talks about are forces, not energy. A modern formulation of Newton's 3rd Law is this: "When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body."

Note that a force is not energy.

When you talk about "remedies", do you mean medicines? If so, why are you asking about a law of mechanics? Mechanics won't tell you anything about the mode of action of medicine. Understanding how medicine works requires biochemistry, not mechanics.

If by "remedies" you do not mean medicines, then what do you mean?
Click to expand...

Force is applied for preparation of remedies. How it is reacted or compensated as reaction? Whether force and energy are not related terms?

Moreover, remedy does not only modern medicine type chemicals. They are also relevant to stimulation of physiological activities.
 
KUMAR5 said:
Sorry, I am not able to understand, what you are saying and how it is linked to this topic.
Click to expand...
It isn't. It was just a response to Your statement
"CONCLUSION:
This trial provides preliminary support for both the acceptability and the effectiveness of treatment by a homeopath for patients with self-reported depression. Our results provide support for further pragmatic research to provide more precise estimates of treatment effect.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28666463 "

Many other(both way) can be found by studying all studies on following link:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=homeopathy

Good Luck.
Click to expand...
Was that in relation to the topic under discussion? Now you ask me if it is related?
 
Write4U said:
It isn't. It was just a response to Your statement
Was that in relation to the topic under discussion? Now you ask me if it is related?
Click to expand...
Yes it is not related but few posters have raised the issue. Therefore. But your posts are beyond my understanding--whether relevant or irrelevant. You can just clarify, what you meant from your posts?
 
KUMAR5 said:
Force is applied for preparation of remedies. How it is reacted or compensated as reaction? Whether force and energy are not related terms?

Moreover, remedy does not only modern medicine type chemicals. They are also relevant to stimulation of physiological activities.
Click to expand...
No, force is not applied for preparation of remedies. To make aspirin, we do not hit something with a hammer or push something uphill. We carry out chemical reactions:

QUOTE FROM WIKI
Synthesis[edit]
The synthesis of aspirin is classified as an esterification reaction. Salicylic acid is treated with acetic anhydride, an acid derivative, causing a chemical reaction that turns salicylic acid's hydroxyl group into an ester group (R-OH → R-OCOCH3). This process yields aspirin and acetic acid, which is considered a byproduct of this reaction. Small amounts of sulfuric acid (and occasionally phosphoric acid) are almost always used as a catalyst. This method is commonly employed in undergraduate teaching labs.[120]


Reaction mechanism

Formulations containing high concentrations of aspirin often smell like vinegar[121] because aspirin can decompose through hydrolysis in moist conditions, yielding salicylic and acetic acids.[122]

UNQUOTE

Your apparent attempt to extend Newton's 3rd Law to chemistry is an absurd thing to do. Newton's laws are laws of motion, not chemistry. They are not some vague principle of operation of everything in the universe. They are just laws describing objects in motion. They should be used in that context only.

Regarding force and energy, they are related in that mechanical work, which is one of many types of energy, is the result of applying a force through a distance. For instance if you lift a mass of 1kg a vertical distance of 1metre, you apply a force of 9.81 Newtons through a distance of 1 metre and thereby do 9.81 Joules of mechanical work. But other types of energy include electrical, chemical, gravitational and kinetic energy, and heat, of course.

By the way, energy is not "stuff". You cannot have a bucket of energy. Energy is a property of a physical system.
 
exchemist,
Whether chemical changes only happen in inter and intra molecules? Intermolecular forces are also there.
 
KUMAR5 said:
exchemist,
Whether chemical changes only happen in inter and intra molecules? Intermolecular forces are also there.
Click to expand...
True, but you said force is applied in the preparation of remedies. That is not true. We do not apply intermolecular forces. Those forces are exerted by one molecule on another, all the time, whether we like it or not, and have nothing to do with how we prepare remedies.

This is getting very silly now. If you cannot raise the level of the discussion to something approaching sense, I am going to stop responding.
 
exchemist said:
True, but you said force is applied in the preparation of remedies. That is not true. We do not apply intermolecular forces. Those forces are exerted by one molecule on another, all the time, whether we like it or not, and have nothing to do with how we prepare remedies.

This is getting very silly now. If you cannot raise the level of the discussion to something approaching sense, I am going to stop responding.
Click to expand...

But it should happen due to force applied for preparing remedies which may affect intermolecular forces(like static electricity is developed).

I feel following models should be considered in checking about Molecular interactions depending upon type of interaction, chemical or physical:

1. Covalent Bond
2. Non-Covalent Bonds
3. Intermolecular Forces.
4. Others??

Eg. In case pendulum and remedies there is no Covalent bonds but other should apply. There seem that we miss some of above due to oversight.
 
KUMAR5 said:
But it should happen due to force applied for preparing remedies which may affect intermolecular forces(like static electricity is developed).

I feel following models should be considered in checking about Molecular interactions depending upon type of interaction, chemical or physical:

1. Covalent Bond
2. Non-Covalent Bonds
3. Intermolecular Forces.
4. Others??

Eg. In case pendulum and remedies there is no Covalent bonds but other should apply. There seem that we miss some of above due to oversight.
Click to expand...
1) I vill not buy this record, it ees scratched.
2) My hovercraft is full of eels.
3) Do you ouant- do you ouant to come back to my place, bouncy bouncy.
 
KUMAR5 said:
Sorry. Try bit latter.
Click to expand...
Later.

Yes please do try a bit harder to be clear. I realise English is not your first language. I do have some experience talking to people who struggle a bit in English (I worked for a multinational oil company for over 30 years) , but there are limits to what I am able to decode.

Also, please try to be clear not only in the language but in what ideas you are trying to express. Do not muddle force with energy, for example.

P.S. If you want to talk about chemical bonding, I'm your man for that. All chemical bonding is based on electrostatic attraction, by the way, even covalent bonds. Though with covalent bonds it is attraction between nuclei and the electrons between them, whose path is determined by quantum theory.
 
Last edited:
exchemist said:
Later.

Yes please do try a bit harder to be clear. I realise English is not your first language. I do have some experience talking to people who struggle a bit in English (I worked for a multinational oil company for over 30 years) , but there are limits to what I am able to decode.

Also, please try to be clear not only in the language but in what ideas you are trying to express. Do not muddle force with energy, for example.

P.S. If you want to talk about chemical bonding, I'm your man for that. All chemical bonding is based on electrostatic attraction, by the way, even covalent bonds. Though with covalent bonds it is attraction between nuclei and the electrons between them, whose path is determined by quantum theory.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Although everything was matching with electrostatic and capacitor model but its storage for long ti become the issue. So looking for PE.
 
KUMAR5 said:
Thanks. Although everything was matching with electrostatic and capacitor model but its storage for long ti become the issue. So looking for PE.
Click to expand...
Looking for "energy" to explain the mode of action of medicine is a big mistake. As I said before, medicines work through biochemistry. They react with, or modify the reactions of, biological molecules. To continue with the aspirin example, there is a description here of how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action_of_aspirin

It interferes with certain enzymes in the body by reacting with them chemically, and this reduces inflammation. Looking for an explanation of this kind of thing in terms of "energy" or "forces" or "action and reaction" is a hopeless strategy: it will tell you nothing. Give it up. You are barking up the wrong tree. (Or just barking, perhaps.........:D)
 
exchemist said:
Looking for "energy" to explain the mode of action of medicine is a big mistake. As I said before, medicines work through biochemistry. They react with, or modify the reactions of, biological molecules. To continue with the aspirin example, there is a description here of how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanism_of_action_of_aspirin

It interferes with certain enzymes in the body by reacting with them chemically, and this reduces inflammation. Looking for an explanation of this kind of thing in terms of "energy" or "forces" or "action and reaction" is a hopeless strategy: it will tell you nothing. Give it up. You are barking up the wrong tree. (Or just barking, perhaps.........:D)
Click to expand...
It ís related to crude medicine not to remedíes esp in higher potencies. Apart from medicínes there are many other healong mechnisms like excercise, physíotherapy, accupúnture etc. Remedies sd work by stimulating inhibited physiolohical activities n for it specific low energy push may only be needed. Thís push only i am searching.
Btw, how PE and potentiality is different? Eg pendulum at lowest or rest position has lowest PE bút highest potential to move on both sides if force is applied?
 
KUMAR5 said:
It ís related to crude medicine not to remedíes esp in higher potencies. Apart from medicínes there are many other healong mechnisms like excercise, physíotherapy, accupúnture etc. Remedies sd work by stimulating inhibited physiolohical activities n for it specific low energy push may only be needed. Thís push only i am searching.
Btw, how PE and potentiality is different? Eg pendulum at lowest or rest position has lowest PE bút highest potential to move on both sides if force is applied?
Click to expand...
You continue to speak in the nonsense vocabulary of homeopathy. The term "potencies" has no scientific meaning, nor does "potentiality". So your question is quite meaningless and has no answer.

The notion you seem to have of "energy push" is rubbish, scientifically speaking. I have already told you that woolly notions of "energy" are useless as an approach to understanding any form of medical treatment.

Drivelling on about energy in mechanical systems such as pendulums is not going to give any insight whatsoever into how any form of medical treatment works (or doesn't work, in the case of homeopathy).

By the way it would also help if you could distinguish between statements you are making and questions you are asking. For instance, " pendulum at lowest or rest position has lowest PE bút highest potential to move on both sides if force is applied?" is written in the grammar of a statement. But you have just stuck a question mark on the end. This is not how questions are expressed in English. If that is meant to be - or contain - a question, what are you asking?
 
Michael 345 said:
Thought there was a promise to go away a few posts back

Must have been a bungie cord promise

:)
Click to expand...
Haha, yes.

I remain fairly convinced this guy is looking for a woo-science justification for homeopathy and other quack medical treatments. The constant reference to "remedies" is very telling. As is the occasional reference to "healing". Both are terms used by quacks to sidestep accusations of misrepresentation, in the fake treatments they peddle. And the attempt to construct some meaningless waffle about "energy" is a classic woo approach, too. As if energy is a sort of "stuff" that you can measure out and bottle, or something. I've explained energy is not "stuff", it is a property of a system in a given state, but he has not taken it in. Probably because it does not suit his preconceptions.

But we'll see. I'm close to the end of my patience, but have not quite given up yet.:rolleyes:
 
exchemist said:
You continue to speak in the nonsense vocabulary of homeopathy. The term "potencies" has no scientific meaning, nor does "potentiality". So your question is quite meaningless and has no answer.

The notion you seem to have of "energy push" is rubbish, scientifically speaking. I have already told you that woolly notions of "energy" are useless as an approach to understanding any form of medical treatment.

Drivelling on about energy in mechanical systems such as pendulums is not going to give any insight whatsoever into how any form of medical treatment works (or doesn't work, in the case of homeopathy).

By the way it would also help if you could distinguish between statements you are making and questions you are asking. For instance, " pendulum at lowest or rest position has lowest PE bút highest potential to move on both sides if force is applied?" is written in the grammar of a statement. But you have just stuck a question mark on the end. This is not how questions are expressed in English. If that is meant to be - or contain - a question, what are you asking?
Click to expand...
Yes question mark is due to oversights. Rest we need to better understand. Yes homeopathic remedies look like medicines but they are not so. Since, no traces of molecules of active substances in higher potencies can be possible, we need to look energy presence.
 
KUMAR5 said:
we need to look energy presence.
Click to expand...

Arrrrr not fair not fair hissey fit not fair. You said you would go away and stop with the rubbish

Or did you say you would go away with the rubbish?

Anyway "WE" DO NOT NEED TO LOOK ENERGY PRESENCE

Sucks thumb and sits in corner

In reality goes for coffee

:)
 
exchemist said:
Haha, yes.

I remain fairly convinced this guy is looking for a woo-science justification for homeopathy and other quack medical treatments. The constant reference to "remedies" is very telling. As is the occasional reference to "healing". Both are terms used by quacks to sidestep accusations of misrepresentation, in the fake treatments they peddle. And the attempt to construct some meaningless waffle about "energy" is a classic woo approach, too. As if energy is a sort of "stuff" that you can measure out and bottle, or something. I've explained energy is not "stuff", it is a property of a system in a given state, but he has not taken it in. Probably because it does not suit his preconceptions.

But we'll see. I'm close to the end of my patience, but have not quite given up yet.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
How it is odd if I try to know science of ÀNY system? It is for science, good for all or for curiosity but not for homeopathy because they are happy n florishing even without science. On the contrary, it can be harmful for them to clear tgem in science due to fear of hijecking their system by mod med system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top