Minutus

Mr. Bird,
You accept homeopathy empirically, I presume, otherwise you're just trolling. So if you accept homeopathy empirically, why are you denying its basic physical tenet, and the most susbcribed, hypothetically? Allow me to be so bold as to tell you why. BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T READ THE LITERATURE. You're still living in the world of theory, where instead of actually READING what material scientists have observed the physicality of the homeopathic remedy, you simply repeat the same putative theory mouthed by skeptoids. But why should you care to read anything that demystifies homeopathy? Why should anyone? THe mechanics doesn't serve to easily glorify you, its too hard, so why make the effort to understand something you don't like?
The majority of homeopaths DO NOT WANT AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS! They would rather have it exist as a swirling mist of mystery where they can be a mystagogue. They are happy having it denounced as a "placebo."
The question Mr. Bird presents is the central one to support the denials of the supramolecular chemistry and plasma physics that support homeopathy, raised by the enemies of homeopathy. What? Homeopathy doesn't have enemies who want to destroy it, to denounce it as a sham?
This is the crux of the argument for and against homeopathy. The edict to homeopaths has been that because water cannot structure, it cannot retain the EM signal of the solute.
In my lecture to the Cavendish, "The Supramolecular Chemistry of the Homeopathic Remedy," I opened with a PPP slide showing a pitcure of a clathrate, saying, "Break out Josephson's scotch. This is the clathrate and the lecture is now over, as there shouldn't be any questions.
No one handed me a glass so I continued talking. I thought that these were Maxwell's children, the top physicists in the world. So I went on talking until Josephson wrestled the microphone away from me hours later. You see, with the clathrate the argument is essentially over, because with one word the argument against homeopathy falls apart, because it proves in classical science that liquid water structures.
The clathrate is a prime example of liquid aqueous structuring (LAS) and it is not some theory, it is the observable truth and proof there is a physical basis to homeopathy and in the words of St. Benveniste, the "memory of water."
That homeopaths haven't leapt on this is further testimony of their desire to keep the physics of homeopathy cloistered as an idiopathic mystery. That is understandable. But the word to the homeopath is "don't be afraid of the science. The people who have presented themselves as knowing more science than you do . . don't! You're the scientists now, you're the ones who know how to change the world for the better, not them."
I've seen the "skeptics", the "scientists" repeatedly push it away. They don't want to look at it anymore than you do. So screw up your courage and take a look at the literature that supports homeopathy. Read Structure of Liquid Water" by Rustum Roy, and "EM Signals" by Montagnier and "Theory of High DIlutes" by Rolland Conte. Science supports homeoapthy, and its time for homeopaths to be presented to the world as scientists, not just witch doctors . . I mean, why not be both?
Skepticism has to look at things particularly and forget the contiguous, and so explanations of liquid aqueous structuring have to be denied by insisting that it's technobabble, that "theory, " not direct observation, that hypothetically, due to hydrogen "bond" breakage and random scattering of molecules within water, liquid aqueous structuring cannot occur.
Without first going into the physics of protic polar LAS, it should be pointed out that direct observation trumps all theories to the contrary. When everyone can see it, it is the job of theory to explain why it happens, i.e. science, not why it shouldn't happen, i.e. superstition.
But superstition, clothed as "science," is what has been continually used to clobber homeopathy. The planet needs healing, not hurting, more yes, not no, more understanding, not confusion. This is more than just healing people. This is the path to nuclear remediation.
But you see, the homeopathy deniers live in their own little worlds of make believe. Liquid aqueous structuring, first seen as hydrates by Davy and Faraday in the early 1800's, then studied by petroleum engineers as clathrates in the mid 20th century, like homeopathy, is quite real and explainable.
Water is hydraulic in its true sense of the word, as hydraulic means "water organ." Like an organ it breathes, it is chambered like a lung. It is ironic to note that whereas all life is primarily water, water is primarily fumes. Water is a completely pneumatic phenomenon. It is made up of at least three gasses, more accurately 1.5 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, H(1.5)O, and atmosphere, or gas, that it comes in contact with, when external it creates a meniscus, and when internal, it has to structure around.
The same effect of hydrogen and sigma bonding you see as surface tension, is the same "mechanism" that creates internal tension and clathrate structure in liquid water.
Prime examples of this are methane clathrates at the bottom of the ocean, which structure around methane gas, the same that caused the BP oil spill, which could have been treated homeopathically, just as nuclear contamination from Fukishima and Hanford, can be treated homeopathically, as should be the gas attack in Syria. Instead of sending missiles over there we should be sending homeopaths.
And along that line let me say something very quickly here. Homeopaths are on the verge of being some of the most sanely intelligent people on the planet.
John Benneth
In a message dated 8/29/2013 2:08:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rogerbird2@hotmail.com writes:
________________________________
________________________________
EXTRAORDINARY MEDICINE

John Benneth, Homeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com

SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

Love people, expect them to love you back.

Dear John,

You are so sharped tongued, I wonder if it is not fool hardy speaking directly to you. But I will take a try.

I found methane clathrates on Wikipedia, but not water clathrates.
I once had a chemistry professor who was into homeopathy who waved his two hands close to his body to give me the idea of the oxygen (his body) having different angles relative to the hydrogen ( his hands). In other words, he was telling me that water is inherently structured (has different angles). I am not sure why the angles would change, but that seemed possible to me. Your speech about clathrates was also a claim to the varying structure of water, I am assuming.
Don't waste your time answering me if what I am saying makes no sense. I would like to dive into one of those books you mention, but studying homeopathy has higher priority. Nevertheless, I wish I had a clue as to the scientific view of homeopathy so that the next time I have a chance, I might get a little further.
Best,
Ellen Madono
________________________________
________________________________

John, this fantastic response hits the nail on the head: if water can hold a structure, then it can retain and potentially transmit molecular information despite the absence of the molecule it informs of, utterly countering argument at least that water cannot retain it.

And it seems irrefutable that it can and does hold such structures. Taking your admonition to heart, I've finally read thoroughly, to great reward, a paper I've held on to for years and only skimmed, the paper you've quoted from Roy (available at hpathy.com/research and at www.rustumroy.com ). Page 595 of the paper contains several gems worth quoting (the first sentence here being so precisely relevant that I'll emphasise it):
By providing a specific structure as a template (usually solid but sometimes liquid), one can induce an entire body of liquid (or even solid, see Liu et al.) to precipitate or crystallize in a pre-selected structure or morphology [52]. The seeding of clouds is epitaxial growth of crystalline-ice on a substrate of AgI, which has the same crystal structure. Seeding and epitaxial growth of semi-conductors is universally practiced in major modern technologies. Information and “memory” are transmitted from the seed or substrate to adjacent layers of the liquid phase, which can completely control the structure of what is formed from it. No chemical transfer whatsoever occurs.
… The biochemical and medical community, unaware of the materials research field, assume that it is only the presence in solution of finite concentrations of the active agent that can affect a liquid. They are clearly wrong: structure can be transferred by epitaxy with no presence whatsoever of the controlling phase. We have established that the structure of water can possibly be influenced by the structure of the solid with which it is in contact, including possibly the glass or polymer containers used to hold it in say IR or Raman spectroscopy.
… The recent work by Samal and Geckeler also shows the most remarkable aggregation of solute+water clusters around a wide variety of solutes (from NaCl to DNA to fullerene complexes) which range into the micron size range as the specific chemical concentration goes down [47].
The paper is replete with mind-boggling, if only marginally relevant, findings that would set fantasies flying if quoted here. But here's another highly pertinent one, from p. 597:
Pressure is well known to have profound effects on crystalline H2O. Some 13 different crystalline H2O structures are known in a modest P–T [pressure–temperature] region. We have shown as reported above, that while it is largely unknown among even materials scientists, it is fully established that all common glasses (frozen liquids) change structure (and their density and refractive index properties) continuo=usly with pressure, and they can be retained in their new states rather easily.9 There is no doubt that under the “normal” succussing procedures, very respectable pressures (say in the 10 kbar range) can be generated on the different size water droplets which result from the shaking. Reasoning from analogy with such similar liquids, there will, no doubt, be many different structures of water formed both by the pressures generated in succussing and in some combination with the epitaxy on any additives.
Although clathrates are a possible source of the information transmitted to succeeding generations of succussed solution (see pp. 603–604), there seems, as Ellen notes in her own reading, no reason in that paper to suppose that clathrate involvement is a foregone conclusion. (The paper mentions zwitterions as an alternative possibility, and broadly discusses as well the highly evident role of nanobubbles.)

In a nutshell, the research as of that paper's writing showed irrefutably mechanisms of transmission and retention of medicinal information in pure water via succession and dilution; but had not pinned down just how those mechanisms create a homoeopathic potency or whether clathrates are necessary to the process.

The origin of your reference to H(1.5)O is, I'm afraid, lost on me, as it may be on others; if you're able to direct me to more on this, I'd appreciate it.

Kind regards,

John
________________________________
________________________________

Dear John,

Where do I start? Such a long post.

I am becoming more familiar with the concept of structured water. Just yesterday I was introduced to Vi-Aqua http://tredispace.com/viaqua/index.php/en/ , which has pushed me over the edge on this structured water matter. I did admit in a earlier post that there could be and should be some kind of imprint between the transcendental vibe and the physical water. If these discoveries concerning structured water can convince people that homeopathy works, then I'll just shut my mouth (or stop typing).

As more and more farmers, gardeners, and others start to use Vi-Aqua and other structured water sorts of products, it will become more and more difficult to deny. Farmers that use it should win in a competitive market over farmers that don't use it. So "energized" water will become undeniable in the future. How long that takes is difficult to know.

I am currently trying to think of experiments to try. Sun tea suddenly begins to seem more interesting and valuable.

However, my belief in a transcendental reality that ultimately powers homeopathy is not based upon theory and a desire to destroy homeopathy. To the contrary, my belief in a transcendental reality that ultimately powers homeopathy is based upon experience and a desire to promote homeopathy. But I can see that if so many hardcore homeopaths can't deal with a transcendental explanation for homeopathy, trying to rub the noses of homeopathy bashers in their own words is not going to work very well. So I will have to rethink that tactic.

I and thousands upon thousands of other people have had out-of-body experiences [OOBEs, OBEs, and NDEs], and the study of these people is as scientific (minus the materialism) and methodical and careful as any study could be hoped for. This is the real reason why I insist upon this belief and why I think that the real power behind homeopathy is transcendental. I just can't see that 3 pellets of relatively dry lactose could physically change a 215 pound man so dramatically [I just had a proving, so this does seem very dramatic to me now.] It also does not explain why there is often such a long lag time between taking the remedy and the effect of the remedy. And structured water does not explain why lactose pellets work.

I do not use the word "magic" because I am trying to destroy homeopathy. I use the word "magic" to try to make skeptics doubt their position, that someone is not afraid of their words and not afraid to admit to transcendental experience or reality.

I am perfectly happy with an explanation for homeopathy. I am not sure that it is going to help much. If I, who have been dabbling in edgy studies for decades, had trouble with "structured" water, there is no way that hardcore, mean spirited, hard-hearted, materialistic skeptics are going to belief it.

Respectfully presented,

Roger Bird
________________________________

From: jrbenneth@aol.com
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 16:34:26 -0400
Subject: [Minutus] Response to Roger Bird regarding the physics of homeopathy
Mr. Bird,
You accept homeopathy empirically, I presume, otherwise you're just trolling. So if you accept homeopathy empirically, why are you denying its basic physical tenet, and the most susbcribed, hypothetically? Allow me to be so bold as to tell you why. BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T READ THE LITERATURE. You're still living in the world of theory, where instead of actually READING what material scientists have observed the physicality of the homeopathic remedy, you simply repeat the same putative theory mouthed by skeptoids. But why should you care to read anything that demystifies homeopathy? Why should anyone? THe mechanics doesn't serve to easily glorify you, its too hard, so why make the effort to understand something you don't like?
The majority of homeopaths DO NOT WANT AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS! They would rather have it exist as a swirling mist of mystery where they can be a mystagogue. They are happy having it denounced as a "placebo."
The question Mr. Bird presents is the central one to support the denials of the supramolecular chemistry and plasma physics that support homeopathy, raised by the enemies of homeopathy. What? Homeopathy doesn't have enemies who want to destroy it, to denounce it as a sham?
This is the crux of the argument for and against homeopathy. The edict to homeopaths has been that because water cannot structure, it cannot retain the EM signal of the solute.
In my lecture to the Cavendish, "The Supramolecular Chemistry of the Homeopathic Remedy," I opened with a PPP slide showing a pitcure of a clathrate, saying, "Break out Josephson's scotch. This is the clathrate and the lecture is now over, as there shouldn't be any questions.
No one handed me a glass so I continued talking. I thought that these were Maxwell's children, the top physicists in the world. So I went on talking until Josephson wrestled the microphone away from me hours later. You see, with the clathrate the argument is essentially over, because with one word the argument against homeopathy falls apart, because it proves in classical science that liquid water structures.
The clathrate is a prime example of liquid aqueous structuring (LAS) and it is not some theory, it is the observable truth and proof there is a physical basis to homeopathy and in the words of St. Benveniste, the "memory of water."
That homeopaths haven't leapt on this is further testimony of their desire to keep the physics of homeopathy cloistered as an idiopathic mystery. That is understandable. But the word to the homeopath is "don't be afraid of the science. The people who have presented themselves as knowing more science than you do . . don't! You're the scientists now, you're the ones who know how to change the world for the better, not them."
I've seen the "skeptics", the "scientists" repeatedly push it away. They don't want to look at it anymore than you do. So screw up your courage and take a look at the literature that supports homeopathy. Read Structure of Liquid Water" by Rustum Roy, and "EM Signals" by Montagnier and "Theory of High DIlutes" by Rolland Conte. Science supports homeoapthy, and its time for homeopaths to be presented to the world as scientists, not just witch doctors . . I mean, why not be both?
Skepticism has to look at things particularly and forget the contiguous, and so explanations of liquid aqueous structuring have to be denied by insisting that it's technobabble, that "theory, " not direct observation, that hypothetically, due to hydrogen "bond" breakage and random scattering of molecules within water, liquid aqueous structuring cannot occur.
Without first going into the physics of protic polar LAS, it should be pointed out that direct observation trumps all theories to the contrary. When everyone can see it, it is the job of theory to explain why it happens, i.e. science, not why it shouldn't happen, i.e. superstition.
But superstition, clothed as "science," is what has been continually used to clobber homeopathy. The planet needs healing, not hurting, more yes, not no, more understanding, not confusion. This is more than just healing people. This is the path to nuclear remediation.
But you see, the homeopathy deniers live in their own little worlds of make believe. Liquid aqueous structuring, first seen as hydrates by Davy and Faraday in the early 1800's, then studied by petroleum engineers as clathrates in the mid 20th century, like homeopathy, is quite real and explainable.
Water is hydraulic in its true sense of the word, as hydraulic means "water organ." Like an organ it breathes, it is chambered like a lung. It is ironic to note that whereas all life is primarily water, water is primarily fumes. Water is a completely pneumatic phenomenon. It is made up of at least three gasses, more accurately 1.5 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen, H(1.5)O, and atmosphere, or gas, that it comes in contact with, when external it creates a meniscus, and when internal, it has to structure around.
The same effect of hydrogen and sigma bonding you see as surface tension, is the same "mechanism" that creates internal tension and clathrate structure in liquid water.
Prime examples of this are methane clathrates at the bottom of the ocean, which structure around methane gas, the same that caused the BP oil spill, which could have been treated homeopathically, just as nuclear contamination from Fukishima and Hanford, can be treated homeopathically, as should be the gas attack in Syria. Instead of sending missiles over there we should be sending homeopaths.
And along that line let me say something very quickly here. Homeopaths are on the verge of being some of the most sanely intelligent people on the planet.
John Benneth
In a message dated 8/29/2013 2:08:19 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, rogerbird2@hotmail.com writes:
________________________________
________________________________
EXTRAORDINARY MEDICINE

John Benneth, Homeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com

SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

Love people, expect them to love you back.

John H. . .
In a message dated 8/31/2013 5:43:09 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, John.P.Harvey@gmail.com writes:
John H. . . I am thrilled to find someone who has read Structure and sees its value.
It would probably be helpful to establish what epitaxy is, the natural or artificial growth of crystals on a crystalline substrate determining their orientation. ROy uses the word "crystalline" numerous times in Structure.
There are actually three different types of epitaxy, heterotopotaxy, which might define the clathrate in the host-guest stage of dilution. heteroepitaxy, which is a two dimensional version of heterotopotaxy and homoepitaxy, which could be the 3-D supra-Avogadro growth of aqueous structuring. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epitaxy
Roy is really a seminal work. It's the first place wher we've seen an estaimte of succussion pressures. I don't know quite how to explain this, but I suspect that there can be pressures above 10 kilobar and that phase changes within the nucleus are contiguous0 that there are varyhihng states between protium, deuterium and tritium generated by succussiom, and that the nuclei are dimorphic, that they are in different states within the same succussed solution.
Well, that it's a foregone conclusion I think is yes and no. In arguing the case for homeopathy it has been first necessary to shoot down the opposition's incorrect hypothesis that water can't structure at liquid temperatures, and the clathrate is a prime example of liquid water structuring. No other conventional mechanism other than protic polarization, hydrogen bonding, has been postulated until Roy brought up the possibility of van der Waals, supported by Pauling's theory that sigma bonds assist the hydrogen bond, but its still invovles intra mangetic forces.
I don't believe clathrates have been noted per se in supramolecular solutions beyond Avogadro. But it could be that when solutes have been diluted out, they are replaced by pneumatic cavitation and the sturcutring is so small as to not be detectgable by our instrumentation and I don't think this is important in unravelling the phenomenon, because the same mechanism in pre 10^23 solutions can be expected to be at work in post 10^23 solutions. What's more is it's evident that pneumatic cavitation is necessary in the supramolecular to have homeopathic effects (Demangeat), evidently serving as nucleation sites in concert with silica ionization (Anick), which brings up another phenomenon tht cfould be at work in these dissipative systems. SO I think its alright to contionue to refer to clathrates as the operative structure, whether they're structuring around guest solutes or pneumatic cavitation. The caging in clathrates implies nucleation, and nucleation is key to the homeopathic remedy.
Yeah, Roy may be the most important work since the Organon, although it could also be said of Montangier's, since he actually used some reductive logic in experimentation. In regards to structuring he filtered it out, measured it and tied it to the EM signal. It was like the final piece in the puzzle.
There is some argument about it . .
"It has recently been suggested that H1.5O may better reflect the formula at very small (attosecond) timescales when some of the H-atoms appear invisible to neutron and electron interaction [515 ]. The experimental results have since been questioned [630 ] and described as erroneous [796 ], but have been more recently confirmed and thought due to a failure of the Born-Oppenheimer approximation (this assumes that the electronic motion and the nuclear motion in molecules can be separated) [1134 ]. Thus the formula H1.5O is incorrect but such suggestions do, however, add support to the view that observations concerning the structure of water should be tempered by the timescale used. Chaplin, http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/molecule.html
I am partial to 1.5 because of protic dispalcememt in the presence of solutes and atmosphere.
Wonderful to have someone to discuss this with who's actually quoting Roy. Thanks!
John B.
________________________________
________________________________

Wow. I like surprises.
Yes, I should have done that. Thanks.
I must say that I'm having trouble distinguishing heterotaxy from heterotopotaxy, despite your explanation and the Wikipedia distinction that's echoed several times around the web, for once a thin film begins forming, surely we're already in the realm of 3D. Is the distinction essentially that in heterotaxy the film remains very thin?

Regardless, it's encouraging that the nomenclature exists for both the first phase, in which (say) water forms a film over a solvent/colloidal substrate, and the later phases, in which it forms a film over previous film layers.
Probably any instrumentation measuring such pressures is going to be limited by sensitivity/noise, so inability to detect infrequent variations in pressure beyond 10 kbars may simply reflect that.

Are you linking that with your suspicion of varying nuclear states? And do you mean, by dimorphic, a property wherein the one nucleus may simultaneously have two different atomic weights? (If not, I don't know quite why you're mentioning as significant its occurrence "in the same succussed solution".)
If Demangeat's conclusion as you put it here is correct (I have references to a couple of papers of his, but not the papers themselves; in any case, I'm sure I couldn't judge its correctness), then the necessity of pneumatic cavitation is certainly suggestive! But unfortunately it may be a byproduct of something else. (Temperature below ~70˚C is also necessary; but it's not exactly part of the mechanism.) And so many strange and charmed effects are at work at these scales that even those who understand something of the forces involved may yet be unaware of several such forces that play vital roles. (I don't know, for instance, of any reason to suppose that H–O bond resonances between one water or alcohol molecule and the next, and the production of burst of coherent light during succussion, are not necessary conditions too, or to suppose that they are not instead the necessary language, or alphabet, within which is coded the relevant structural information in such a form that it can influence biological function.)

There's some nice thinking on all this too, by the way, in a 2002 paper by Brian R. Connelly, "How does homeopathy work?", available at (and what appears to be an identical paper, "How homeopathy works", part 1, at ).
It's another head-spinning one.
I wonder where they get to.

Thanks for that.

Cheers!

John H.