Minutus

In a message dated 6/16/2015 6:38:15 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
Pardon me, Irene, for not responding sooner to yet another one of your strawmen, but I had more important things to do, like smoke a cigarette, drink a beer and take a nap. The organic molecule definition you truncated wasn't from me, and your response to it shows you're not serious about making a reasonable examination of Copeland's article on molecular and ionic dissociation of solutes in "homeopathic" preparations. The mere title alone of the pay per view paper on bond dissociation in organic molecules you're trying to hide behind puts to bed your naked assertion that organic molecules don't dissociate.
Perhaps you'd like to retract your invention and re-read Copeland's article, wake up and smell the ionized Opium: The chemical analysis of the homeopathic remedy, linking it to known chemical principles has been extant for 106 years.
Ouch!
And for the rest of you homeopaths, all your "experts" must be horrified. Maybe I should have waited until Halloween to unmask what they've been hiding from you all these years. How terrible it must be for them to learn how easily the waters you treated like magic can be demystified.
John Benneth

There is one point that Irene's claim that organic molecules don't ionize raises, and this is apoint to impress on atheists.
If by organic we are to mean 'of, relating to, or derived from living matter. and an organic molecule is actually made up entirely of inorganic atoms, where does the "living" come from?

I feel lots of confusion here....

Let's start with the "ionisation" controversy: when a substance is put in water, it tends to dissolve (unless it is not soluble of course), but certainly not to its atomic parts. Salt will become a mix of Na+ and Cl-, yes, we all know that, but let's say a drop of milk, Lac Vaccinum: we will then find in that water some casein, some lactose, some globulins, a few minerals and vitamins, some fats but each one of them retains its identity, its "individuality" although each one will have an electrical charge, positive, negative and some neutral.

That is where I see the confusion: everything in solution "ionises" inasmuch as it separates from other components and receives an electrical charge but it does not decompose into its basic atomic elements.
The infinite dilution that started the whole discussion is valid whether you are talking about a single element of the periodic table or about a protein, a lipid or anything else.

Let's go back to Lac Vaccinum. It is a single proved remedy but it is made of different components, each of which is part of the complete picture, which is bigger than the sum of each component.
When diluted the same signal/information coming from the different parts is still there in the same proportion; that is why no matter how big the dilution is, if the preparation is succussed, we still have Lac Vaccinum and not Caseinum, Lactose, etc,...

The second point is the definition of life. What does that have to do with atheism?

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

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

www.naturamedica.co.nz

That is NOT how chemists define organic chemistry.
There are no organic or inorganic atoms. There are only inorganic or organic BONDS between atoms.
There is no "living" in chemistry.

Chemistry applies to all matter, living or otherwise....it applies to everything that can be made from elements in the periodic table. That includes all molecules with ionic bonds (called inorganic by agreement) , all molecles with other kinds of bond such as covalent bonds (called organic by agreement, regardless what kinds of material are involved) and all metals with lattice structure.

Chemistry involving living things has its own separate name - "biochemistry". Biochemistry happens to involve some molecules with ionic bonds (eg sodium chloride, potassium chloride, water), and also some molecules with organic bonds (eg proteins, enzymes, hormones) and also some with metal lattices (eg iron, vanadium, selenium, copper).

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."

When I heard the story of the three litte pigs, I gave up straw
Perhaps you have read it? It is old enough. Maybe older even than Copeland.

(Write like a gentleman if you wish a response.)
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."

I do not think your example helps becasue:
Some milk components are synthesized in the epithelial cells from precursors absorbed from the blood and secreted into the alveolar lumen. Other components are transported through the epithelial cells before secretion into the lumen. But - ALL of the various components of milk can be found in the lactating epithelial cell as the already liquid complex substance we call "milk".
So milk itself only exists as an accumulation of all the individual components as they are secreted from the cell into the lumen.
It is not necessary to add water, and adding water (diluting) does not make the components different from the way they are in milk.
Its components exist in the form they exist - BEFORE adding water to dilute, and do not "dissociate in water" partly or wholly.

If they start out in milk (a solvent) as a charged element like Na+ that is how they remain on dilution with another solvent (water). If they start as a protein (covalent bonds) or fat, they stay that way.
There is no ionization when milk is diluted in water. Milk is already a mixture of ionized atomic bonds of things like sodium chloride and potassium chloride, plus organic mlecules that do not have charges.
Not true.
Only ionic bonds in solution (whether milk or weater) "ionize" and separate from other components and hold an electric charge.
It is valid regardless whether anything ionizes or not.
I think that is more the point.
Infinite dilution only shows there is still substance present, not what form it has.
Agree this part.
Ionizing or not ionizing, and having charged or uncharged components - is irrelevant and is not part of the infinite dilution fact that original components are still there AS ORIGINAL FORMS not in changed form.

Suggesting that ionizing or charged components are relevant, is the cause of confusion.
(The kinds of charges related to homeopathy will not be these kinds of charges either. So they really do not fit into the discussion at all.)

WHat I think we need to look at in more depth, is the point Hahnemann reached, when he realized you could not simply make a liquid remedy in dilution from a SOLID substance.
He used three triturations first before going to liquid.
I would like to be a miniaturized individual able to see at the molecular level what those solid molecules or metal crystal lattices are doing exactly, during the trituration to render them suitable for dilution in liquid, when the original starting solid is not able to be diluted in liquid.
Can someone explain that one to me please?

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."

Thanks, Joe, I for one am very relieved that someone is finally addressing this intelligently, instead of dismissing it as baloney. If I may, I'd like to address your points where they stand.
In a message dated 6/18/2015 8:38:49 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
There is definitely condfusion if not ignorance of the principle of infinite dilution. I've run it by a couple of physicists, one a Nobelist, the other an author of a seminal work on the structure of liquid water and its relevance to homeopathy and am not getting the slightest hint of an awareness of anything about it, yet . . the idea that a particle can spilt indefinitely does seem to be inexplicable indeed
The solute doesn't just dissolve in water, it dissociates into molecules, atoms, ions and radicals within a consistent concentration, maintaining the solute's specific properties.
Actually I believe it may only appear to decompose . Maybe it would be better to say it expands
Thank God somebody on this list finally has come out and said it, and who better than Roz, the Wizard of Oz . . Now I can finally die, or at least take a rest.
Yes! And it may be actually be demonstrating an extrinsic direction from a primal phase. I do have my reservations about the necessity of succussion, though. I think its a coefficient of enthalpy. I don't think it effects the specificity or potential of the remedy, but rather the signal amplitude in the final dilution.
Well, it should arouse intellectual curiosity to note that every skeptic of homeopathy is an atheist, and not one of them mentions Spinozism, Einstein's religion, the monist philosophical system of Baruch Spinoza which defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such.

Substance monism[edit ]
The argument for there only being one substance (or, more colloquially, one kind of stuff) in the universe occurs in the first fourteen propositions of The Ethics. The following proposition expresses Spinoza's commitment to substance monism:

“ Except God, no substance can be or be conceived.(E1P14)[8]
The problem is that without acknowledgment of inexplicable processes like infinite dilution and omnipresent substance, science leads to atheism and inevitably runs to that joker Democritus and his indivisible particle ne' atom, which I presume is exactly what they're looking for (and which they'll never find) at Cern.
I think infinite dilution demonstrates a unified field, something the egomaniacs can't stand.
John Benneth

Nobody argued with the principle of infinite dilution - ony with your theory that ionization has anything to do with it.
and your theory that inorganic molecules make organic ones
and your theory that organic molecules dissociate.

Keep it honest please.
There is no particle splitting involved in infinite dilution.
Infinite dilution of a substance retains the original features of the original components.
We do not know how exactly, but ionization is not the answer.
Organic chemicals cannot ionize as proved by the science for which I sent you the link.
But they still retain their characteristics at infinite dilutions.
there is no such t hing as dissociation into moleules.
Only small ionic-bonded molecules can dissociate.
And they can only dissociate by breaking one ionic bond to make one positibe and one negative ion.
Ions are not atoms, they are negatively charged ions. They have a permanent association with the other half of the ionic-bonded molecule.
Radicals cannot form from diissociation, they only form from chemical reactions.
And bottom line ...organic bonded chemicals CANNOT dissociate by defintion. They can only have bonds broken by chemicl reaction.

SO how they retain their molecular characteristics at infinite dilution (which they do) is still to be explained - in a way that applies to ALL sustances, not just ionic bonded ones.
Oh boy, now what are you talkig about?
You are inventing undefined phrases again.
Explain that please.
For dilution properties or homeopathy properties?
They are not the same thing.
You can dilute to your heart's content and get no homeopathic effect.
Succussion DOES increase homeopathic capability.
It is separate from dilution effects.
Enthalpy has to do with heat.
Succussion does not just heat the solution. It changes (permanently, proving it is not heat), the eergy of healing in the solution. If succussion merely added heat energy, that heat woudl soon be lost to the room air.
SO succussion is not enthalpy.
Likely- but what has that to do with enthalpy. Enthalpy is thermodynamic potential. There's no heat of reaction gained or lost in homeopathy.
You can use hot water as a remedy - and that will fix a burn - if a remedy had enthalpy, it would make nonsense of that actual eddective use of homeopathy, so it cannot be so.
(ANy theory must apply to ALL cases of homepathy - as soon as even ONE case fails, then the theory fails.)
That is not true.
Also some homepaths are atheist.
Proves nothing.

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."

" every skeptic of homeopathy is an atheist" ......I never had philosophical or religious discussions with any skeptic, but I really doubt that affirmation...anyway....those "inexplicable processes" are such for now, explanations come with proper research. That is why I always say that I do not have beliefs, I only have knowledge; and when I do not know, I say so, and keep trying to acquire that knowledge or realise it is above my level of understanding and let others do the work: I love reading papers about quantum physics, but only those simplified for the general public as I will never, ever understand the maths behind it....and it all comes back to Einstein, matter is nothing but a concentration of energy, I do not need to go further than that and I certainly do not need any supra-natural intervention...

The same goes for the explanations about homeopathy: although I am still deepening my understanding about the physics of water (and hopefully will be able to present a paper about its relation to homeopathy at the 2016 AHA conference in Brisbane, if the subject is accepted), I have reached a point where I need the help of physicists and chemists and access to labs to get further, prove or disprove what I have already written and probably be amazed by unexpected findings...anyone????

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

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

www.naturamedica.co.nz

Wouldn't it be nice if people set out to be respectful and decent

Irene de Villiers furryboots@icehouse.net [minutus] schreef op 19-6-2015
om 7:08: