12c and (+) potencies and more
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:34 am
Sourosh,
If you want to know what Avogadro's Limit /constant is (12c potentising and above) here it is explained by Chandran Nambiar:
The Avogadro constant is named after the early nineteenth-century Italian scientist Amedeo Avogadro, who in 1811, first proposed that the volume of a gas (at a given pressure and temperature) is proportional to the number of atoms or molecules regardless of the nature of the gas.The French physicist Jean Perrin in 1909 proposed naming the constant in honor of Avogadro. Perrin won the 1926 Nobel Prize in Physics, in a large part for his work in determining the Avogadro constant by several different methods.
Jean Perrin got a Nobel prize in physics in 1926 for his exhaustive work on Avogadro constant. If Sourosh thinks the swedish academy made such a decision without enough 'evidence', I can only pity for him, for his ignorance or closed mindedness, whatever it may be.
In chemistry and physics, the Avogadro constant is defined as the ratio of the number of constituent particles (usually atoms or molecules) in a sample to the amount of substance n (unit mole) . Thus, it is the proportionality factor that relates the molar mass of an entity, i.e., the mass per amount of substance, to the mass of said entity. The Avogadro constant expresses the number of elementary entities per mole of substance and it has the value 6.02214129(27)×10raised 23 mol. Changes in the SI units are proposed that will change Avogadro's constant to to exactly 6.02214X×10 raised 23 when it is expressed in the unit mol
Whole scientific world utilizes this avogadros constant in all calculations in physics and chemistry, and it is found correct. But our 'classical homeopaths' will not believe it without 'scientific evidence'!
Most funny thing is, these people are not bothered about the 'scientific evidences' for those aphorisms in Organon! They never ask for 'scientific evidence' for 'miasms' or 'vital force' or similia similibus curentur. They never ask for 'scientific evidence' for all those nonsense theories preached as part of homeopathy. They never ask for 'scientific evidence' for all those occult practices done by so-called homeopaths in the name of CAM!
They want 'scientific evidence' only when some body talks about science! They instantly will jump in to prove 'science is unscientific', and 'homeopathy is ultimate science'!
It is a sheer waste to discuss science with such people. I prefer to ignore those intellectual morons.
"Remedies are DYNAMIC and each reacts with the vital force!" This is the statement of the moderator of mintus group. These are the people who represent homeopathy before the world. Most of the influential sections of homeopathy try to propagate homeopathy that way. That is the reason why the scientific community perceives homeopathy as quackery and placebo.
I do not intend to argue with these old horses. I am sure, they cannot be convinced about the science of homeopathy. My hope is in the new generation of science-educated, academically trained and qualified young homeopaths. Only they can understand the language of science.
Chandran in his writings also says:
Possibilities of potentized homeopathic medicines interacting with genetic substance in the organism is a subject of much concern, speculations and controversy among homeopaths. Such controversies arise from the lack of sufficient understanding regarding the active principles contained in potentized medicines, and their exact mechanism of action in the living system.
With our new scientific understanding of potentization as a process of molecular imprinting, we are now in a better position to answer these questions satisfactorily. Since, molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations cannot successfully compete with natural ligands in binding with their target molecules, we need not be concerned about the possibility of potentized homeopatic medicines dangerously interacting with genetic material in any way.
Molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations bind to ligands or biological molecules merely due to their complementary cofigurations without any charge affinity, whereas natural ligands bind to their biological target molecules in capacity of their appropriate spacial configurations as well as charge affinities. So, the bindings of molecular imprints with biological molecules or their ligands will be very temporary and cannot stay long. Such bindings of molecular imprints cannot replace the natural ligand-target interactions happening as part of vital processes. Molecular imprints can not compete with natural ligands in binding to their natural biological targets. Hence it is obvious that potentized homeopathic preparations cannot interfere in biological 'ligand-target' processes such as 'substrate-enzyme', 'antigens-antibodies', 'signal-receptor' etc. As such, chances of potentized homeopathic medicines acting as pathological agents are very rare even if used indiscriminately. Molecular imprints can interfere only in interactions between pathogenic molecules and biological molecules, as well as off-target bindings of ligands with biological molecules, where only configurational affinity is involved. Obviously, molecular imprints can act upon only the molecular blocks created by exogenous or endogenous foreign pathological molecules.
At the same time, these molecular imprints can effectively compete with the pathogenic actions of deformed proteins that may result from genetic errors, thereby preventing them from creating pathological molecular blocks at various targets. As such, homeopathic medicines can play a great role even in the treatment of certain diseases of genetic origin, at least as palliatives.
More over, potentized homeopathic medicines can safeguard genetic material from dangerous mutations that may be caused bythe inhibitory actions of endogenous or exogenous pathogenicl agents such as toxic drugs, heavy metals, super-oxides etc., on enzymes related with nucleic acid synthesis and genetic expressions.
Jeff
If you want to know what Avogadro's Limit /constant is (12c potentising and above) here it is explained by Chandran Nambiar:
The Avogadro constant is named after the early nineteenth-century Italian scientist Amedeo Avogadro, who in 1811, first proposed that the volume of a gas (at a given pressure and temperature) is proportional to the number of atoms or molecules regardless of the nature of the gas.The French physicist Jean Perrin in 1909 proposed naming the constant in honor of Avogadro. Perrin won the 1926 Nobel Prize in Physics, in a large part for his work in determining the Avogadro constant by several different methods.
Jean Perrin got a Nobel prize in physics in 1926 for his exhaustive work on Avogadro constant. If Sourosh thinks the swedish academy made such a decision without enough 'evidence', I can only pity for him, for his ignorance or closed mindedness, whatever it may be.
In chemistry and physics, the Avogadro constant is defined as the ratio of the number of constituent particles (usually atoms or molecules) in a sample to the amount of substance n (unit mole) . Thus, it is the proportionality factor that relates the molar mass of an entity, i.e., the mass per amount of substance, to the mass of said entity. The Avogadro constant expresses the number of elementary entities per mole of substance and it has the value 6.02214129(27)×10raised 23 mol. Changes in the SI units are proposed that will change Avogadro's constant to to exactly 6.02214X×10 raised 23 when it is expressed in the unit mol
Whole scientific world utilizes this avogadros constant in all calculations in physics and chemistry, and it is found correct. But our 'classical homeopaths' will not believe it without 'scientific evidence'!
Most funny thing is, these people are not bothered about the 'scientific evidences' for those aphorisms in Organon! They never ask for 'scientific evidence' for 'miasms' or 'vital force' or similia similibus curentur. They never ask for 'scientific evidence' for all those nonsense theories preached as part of homeopathy. They never ask for 'scientific evidence' for all those occult practices done by so-called homeopaths in the name of CAM!
They want 'scientific evidence' only when some body talks about science! They instantly will jump in to prove 'science is unscientific', and 'homeopathy is ultimate science'!
It is a sheer waste to discuss science with such people. I prefer to ignore those intellectual morons.
"Remedies are DYNAMIC and each reacts with the vital force!" This is the statement of the moderator of mintus group. These are the people who represent homeopathy before the world. Most of the influential sections of homeopathy try to propagate homeopathy that way. That is the reason why the scientific community perceives homeopathy as quackery and placebo.
I do not intend to argue with these old horses. I am sure, they cannot be convinced about the science of homeopathy. My hope is in the new generation of science-educated, academically trained and qualified young homeopaths. Only they can understand the language of science.
Chandran in his writings also says:
Possibilities of potentized homeopathic medicines interacting with genetic substance in the organism is a subject of much concern, speculations and controversy among homeopaths. Such controversies arise from the lack of sufficient understanding regarding the active principles contained in potentized medicines, and their exact mechanism of action in the living system.
With our new scientific understanding of potentization as a process of molecular imprinting, we are now in a better position to answer these questions satisfactorily. Since, molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations cannot successfully compete with natural ligands in binding with their target molecules, we need not be concerned about the possibility of potentized homeopatic medicines dangerously interacting with genetic material in any way.
Molecular imprints contained in the potentized homeopathic preparations bind to ligands or biological molecules merely due to their complementary cofigurations without any charge affinity, whereas natural ligands bind to their biological target molecules in capacity of their appropriate spacial configurations as well as charge affinities. So, the bindings of molecular imprints with biological molecules or their ligands will be very temporary and cannot stay long. Such bindings of molecular imprints cannot replace the natural ligand-target interactions happening as part of vital processes. Molecular imprints can not compete with natural ligands in binding to their natural biological targets. Hence it is obvious that potentized homeopathic preparations cannot interfere in biological 'ligand-target' processes such as 'substrate-enzyme', 'antigens-antibodies', 'signal-receptor' etc. As such, chances of potentized homeopathic medicines acting as pathological agents are very rare even if used indiscriminately. Molecular imprints can interfere only in interactions between pathogenic molecules and biological molecules, as well as off-target bindings of ligands with biological molecules, where only configurational affinity is involved. Obviously, molecular imprints can act upon only the molecular blocks created by exogenous or endogenous foreign pathological molecules.
At the same time, these molecular imprints can effectively compete with the pathogenic actions of deformed proteins that may result from genetic errors, thereby preventing them from creating pathological molecular blocks at various targets. As such, homeopathic medicines can play a great role even in the treatment of certain diseases of genetic origin, at least as palliatives.
More over, potentized homeopathic medicines can safeguard genetic material from dangerous mutations that may be caused bythe inhibitory actions of endogenous or exogenous pathogenicl agents such as toxic drugs, heavy metals, super-oxides etc., on enzymes related with nucleic acid synthesis and genetic expressions.
Jeff