Minutus

In a message dated 6/15/2015 4:11:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
Well once again, Irene, it doesn't take a science degree to bat your slow pitches out of the stadium. If not inorganic molecules, WHAT IS IT YOU THINK "ORGANIC" MATTER IS MADE UP OF? Does your strawman key note speech also include a dissertation on the "organic molecule?"
You know, I'm getting sick of these strawman responses and the dismissal on the basis of antiquity. I've taken the trouble to vet Copeland on infinite dilution, and the references I've seen make no such distinction as 'it only occurs with what chemists call "ionic bonds" of "inorganic chemicals" in a solvent such as water.'
If you read modern electrochemistry's description of "infinite dilution" it fits, corresponds and agrees with the claim made by homeopaths for over 200 years that no matter what degree of dilution, properties of the solute have been observed to remain in the solvent, specifically when the solvent is water. This is from modern electrochemistry, not just from some feathered pen of Copeland's. What's more, modern electrochemistry also says that the ionic concentration remains the same after complete ionization.
It would be nice, Irene, if for once you would squash your consistency bias with exclusive clathrate H-bond structural explanations and reference your assertions with something other than your imagination.

John Benneth

I am certainly not denying the notion of "infinite dilution" especially after having read a few of the recent papers about it, and maybe understood part of it.

What it boils down in regard to homeopathy, for me, is the fact that whatever the dilution, the signal, the information carried by a solute will always be present in a solution, no matter how dilute it is....which, as you wrote previously, immediately destroys the argument "there is nothing in there".
What is difficult is to capture that information. I see that a bit like the recent images of the distant edges of the universe and the signals it sends; it was always there, we just could not see it.

Where it stops is with the practical usefulness of this notion. We know that simple dilution eventually results in weakness of action and eventually inaction. We need succussion not only to keep the action but also, when combined with dilution, open up and reveal the existence of formerly unknown information and activity....nothing new here.

I will have to set aside some time to properly read all that information, digest it in a way that I can use it with a simple explanation, not just throw the words "infinite dilution" at people and hope they will know.

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

Potentisation needs both dilution and succussion.

From what I understood, especially from the recent papers about infinite dilution, a notion used by chemists, physicists and chemical engineers apparently to purify elements that they then need to concentrate separately in order to make then useful, is that there will always be a presence of the solute, no matter how much of solvent is added.

If you have my book "Third Millennium Homeopathy" you will find in "Homeophysiology" the beginning of the clathrate explanation and why IMO it explains a lot and very simply for that matter.
I am currently working on deepening that approach, but don't hold your breath.... ...

We know from herbal medicine for example, that the more you dilute your preparation, the weaker and the less active it becomes. But if you ADD succussion, then you get a dynamised remedy with expanded properties.
The separation of dilution and succussion is artificial and irrelevant when it comes to homeopathy.

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

In a message dated 6/15/2015 3:24:02 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
Thanks for your thoughts on this Joe. Allow me to venture that dilution is the potential and succussion the coefficient; ionization does not require succussion, whereas amplitude of the signal does, the higher the dilution the more susceptible it is to succussion, as experienced in the LMs.
Right.
I do have your book and think you are and it is brilliant. In 2010 at the invitation of Prof. Josephson I lectured an audience of physicists at the Cavendish Lab at Cambridge, England, on the subject of clathrates and their theoretical relevance to homeopathy, and don't find dissociation, ionization and infinite dilution to be exclusive of H-bond structuring and other water mechanics.
Hmm, I wonder . .

Shouldn't we realise that nothing is exclusive?

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

Organic molecules are not made of inorganic molecules.
Chemistry is divided into what chemists call inorganic molecules and what chemists call organic molecules. Every molecule is one or the other, depending what bonds they contain.
The organic ones have a carbon base and a completely different kind of bond holds them together than the ionic bonds of the ones chemists call inorganic molecules. I am sorry you do not like the facts of that.

Both types are composed of ATOMS (not molecules) which bond together to form a molecule.
Only the type of bond (which chemists call ionic bonds) in the inorganic chemicals, separates (called dissociation) into separate "ions" in a solvent. The organic molecules stay intact. They cannot dissociate into charged componenet atoms like inorganic molecles.
Ask politely next time. You are lucky to get an answer when you are just rude.
Take some remedy.
Have a good day.
My posts on chemistry cover the simplest basics of chemistry which you clearly have not bothered to read.
It is easier for you to throw insults around than to check it out.
Copeland was 1909, he guessed as best he could back then. And he made some invalid conclusions.
Wake up it is 2015.
Yes but that does not lead to your claims.

That follows simply becasue what you put into the solution stays there.....in any dilution.
It does not change into"plasma" as you theorize.
And it has no demostrable correlation with homeopathy.
The conclusions about plasma and homeopathy however are fiction.
That is simply the chemist's way of saying that if you put X number of particles in there and dilute it, there will still be the X number of particles there after you dilute it.
You are reading sometig else into it that is not there.
And you are assuming that ionic (inorganic) compounds can explain somethig that does not apply to organic compounds from which most remedies are made, nor to metallic substaces which use crystal lattice structures not molecular ones.
You need a theory that can be applied to ALL remedies.
Huh?
That phrase has no meaning. But I am fond of squash.
Is this the best argument you can come up with against clathrates?

(If you are this ugly again, your posts will go to my trash file as a waste of my time, where John Harveys mails go automatically. I do not participate here to be anyone's personal punching bag.)

Clathrates are not my imagination. I stated the part which is my personal theory, the rest is known science you can look up. It is all the basic chemistry I wrote about and which needs to be taken into account in any theory.
Sneeering at it, or at anyone writing about it, will not make ionic compounds into organic ones just becasue you would like it better that way.

Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Dear John
If I was Irene, I would have found your post offensive. There was no need for your response the way you have formulated it.
Irene is absolutely spot on with her differentiation of Organic and Inorganic molecules.
I think the point that Irene is trying hard to make is that if the presentation appears to be incorrect, then the whole lot is dismissed by the sceptics and in effect "we lose the baby with the bathwater."
Your Copeland based point refers only to Inorganic molecules and their ionic dissociation. But we do not know whether Copeland looked at Organic solutions and whether organic molecules also form some kind of dissociation. If they do, then they would strengthen the point you have presented.
A combination of care, politeness and kindness is always more effective in the settlement of differing points of view.
Kind regards

Soroush

(And I am wearing my moderator's hat partially!)
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: 15 June 2015 18:41
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] SECRET CHEMISTRY OF HOMEOPATHY EXPOSED
In a message dated 6/15/2015 4:11:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
Well once again, Irene, it doesn't take a science degree to bat your slow pitches out of the stadium. If not inorganic molecules, WHAT IS IT YOU THINK "ORGANIC" MATTER IS MADE UP OF? Does your strawman key note speech also include a dissertation on the "organic molecule?"
You know, I'm getting sick of these strawman responses and the dismissal on the basis of antiquity. I've taken the trouble to vet Copeland on infinite dilution, and the references I've seen make no such distinction as 'it only occurs with what chemists call "ionic bonds" of "inorganic chemicals" in a solvent such as water.'
If you read modern electrochemistry's description of "infinite dilution" it fits, corresponds and agrees with the claim made by homeopaths for over 200 years that no matter what degree of dilution, properties of the solute have been observed to remain in the solvent, specifically when the solvent is water. This is from modern electrochemistry, not just from some feathered pen of Copeland's. What's more, modern electrochemistry also says that the ionic concentration remains the same after complete ionization.
It would be nice, Irene, if for once you would squash your consistency bias with exclusive clathrate H-bond structural explanations and reference your assertions with something other than your imagination.
John Benneth

Please pardon my insanity Soroush, but I was raised to believe like cures like.
Irene says "ONLY chemically inorganic molecules dissociate in water and a very very small minority of remedies involve them."
And now YOU are signing on to this as a way to shoot down Copeland?
Now please allow me to make this abundantly clear to you and Irene:

1.

So let me ask you again. If not inorganic molecules, WHAT IS IT YOU THINK "ORGANIC" MATTER IS MADE UP OF?
Inorganic atoms, right? So when an organic molecule dissociates, according to the definition of what it is, the ionized elements from the organic molecule will be inorganic.
No wonder homeopathy is still in the Dark Ages. Hahnemann 200 years ago said there is no chemical analysis of the homeopathic remedy. But that was the 18th century! They didn't have the scope of it at the time, they didn't have the theory and instrumentation to prove it at the time. But now we do! And we've ALL MISSED IT for at least 106 years.
Could it be because of a consistency bias? Here in Portland, Oregon at the National College of Natural Medicine they still are teaching their students there's no chemical analysis of the "homeopathic remedy." Yet one from Copeland, the man who became the chief sponsor and architect of the FDCA, was made 106 years ago, still confirmed in chemistry by principles of infinite dilution. Allow Will Taylor to correct me on this if I'm wrong. He's been an instructor there.
Why aren't the chemical principles of infinite dilution known within homeopathy?
Why are homeopaths afraid of the truth?
In a message dated 6/16/2015 8:22:33 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

No.
There are no inorganic atoms or organic atoms.
Atoms are ELEMENTS, not molecules. A molecule by definition is atoms combined into a substance by bonding. Not molecules combined.

The RESULTANT molecule may be organic or inorganic according to whether it has ionic bonds or covalent ones.

Atoms are basic elements. You can find a list of them in any periodic table of the elements. Many of them can be used in either organic or iorganic molecules. Only molecules contain chemical BONDS, and the type of bond determines the inorganic or organic category of the molecule.

Atomic ELEMENTS are capable of being part of a molecule only if they form a bond with another atomic ELEMENT which is the same or different from itself.

Hydrogen atoms for example can make bonds with each other, and two bonded ones make a hydrogen gas molecule, abbreviated H2.
Or two Hydrogen atoms can each bond to one Oxygen atom, to make a water molecule, abbrev H2O.
By the way Water molecules do not dissociate in water, even though they are inorganic molecules. When you boil water, they change into hydrogen gas H2 and half as much Oxygen gas O2 (as there are half as many oxygen ATOMS as hydrogen atoms in the starting liquid.)
It takes a lot of (heat) energy to break the ionic bonds between H and O in water.

MANY atomic elements are capable of being in inorganic molecules or organic molecules
SOME atomic elements can only be in organic molecules as they cannot make ionic bonds.

Organic molecule bonds are harder to break than ionic bonds, and they result in NEW chemicals (via chemical reactions not dissociation) when you break the bonds.
There is a specific amnount of energy involved in the break of any boind in an organic chemoical, called the bond dissociation energy.
That energy forces one specific bond to break. tere is a different energy requirement for each bond in an organic molcule, required to cause that bond to break.
The big difference between breaking ionic bonds by dissociation in solvent, and those in orgaic molecules,
is that in ionic bond substances, the dissociation of their ionic bond RETAINS the same substance in the liquid,
(eg NaCL dissociates into Na+ and Cl- but BOTH forms act like salt.)
BUT
Break any bond in an organic chemical (which requires the "bond dissociation eneregy" of the specific bond to be broken) and you get NEW chemical substances replacing the original ones via chemical reaction.
(eg If you have chlorine and ethane together and apply the appropriate energy to break off justone of the H atoms,
then the ethane CH3-CH2-H plus Cl will turn into CH3-CH2 plus HCl namely an ethyl grop plus hydrochl;oric acid. This wil NOT have the same characteristic as the starting substances of ethane and chlorine. Breaking the bond causes the making of NEW substances in organic bond molecules.)

So you can not lump them together.
Organic molecules float - they do not change or chemically react unless there is energy for cheical reaction.
If there is eneregy for cheical reaction (turninginto new chemicals) then BOTH orgaic and inorrganic mlecules will o that.
(eg Put HCl in water, an inorganic chemical,and the water gets hot. Why?
There is a negative energy that breaks it into H+ and Cl- ions (dissociation of ionic bonds) BUT the extra eneergy is used to make some of thise H+ into H2 gas and some of that Cl- into CL2 gas...a Chemical reaction, not a dissociatio of ions.

So dissociation of ions is something that happens with a MINORITY of substances, and only if the energy requirements are met to stay stable as the same substance.
It can not explain ALL cases of anything to do with homeopathy.
Organic molecules do not dissociate.
An individual bond in an organic molecule can be forced to leave its molecule but requires the appropriate "bond dissociation energy" for that specific bond within the molecule, to force the CHEMICAL change into a new substance.
It is not "ionic dissociation" which does not change the NATURE of the substance.

With organic "BOND dissociation", (as it only dissociates ONE bond in a complex molecule, at a time and EACH bond has a dissociation energy requirement) the result is new and different chemicals - made from the same atoms. example above.
No.
Ionization retains the chemical nature of its components.
Organoic bond breaking causes chemical change into new substances.

Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

So....... plastics and benzenes and pyridine etc are to be sought in living systems?
News to me:-)

Here is a link to help you straighten out your invented beliefs about chemistry:


It happens to be 2003 info. Hopefully you understand it enough to see that organic molecules do chemical reactions, not ionic dissociation, if you manage to break any bond in one.
I also HOPE you at least agree that chemical reactions are not the explanation of how homeopathy works!

You could start there before you make a new theory and then you can defend your theories with real chemistry facts. [Rudeness only says "I have no knowledge of it, refuse to look it up, and will whip you for pointing it out" ]

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."