Avogadros number cannot be the only criteria to discard homeopathy
Modern Science discards Homeopathy on the ground of Avogadros Number .By this time it is well known to the world through our papers that it is the unravelled truth of modern science due to which Homeopathy could not be explained so far.
Now, Avogadros Number cannot be the sole criteria to discard homeopathy.
The experiments & explanations which we have given in our papers are not only interesting but can be done even by a high school student .As the papers are being displayed by some referred organisations (Ritsumeikan Univ,JAPAN, National Research Council,Canada,British Library Direct) beside SIMILLIMUM (www.hanp.net) for some fund, we are unable to provide contents at present.We request our readers for feedback.
28.02.2015
published in hpathy.com (Feb 2015)
2 comments:
(...well, not exactly anonymous, but since your system does not allow me to enter my name & email, this will do.)
Some thoughts:
Firstly, determination of Ln would seem to have to be probabilistic, it is just not as simple as saying there is a step-function at 6.~*10^23.
What if there is a single molecule in a drop of water, and the drop is divided? At these dilutions, the difference is undetectable. It is Scrodinger's molecule!
This leads to an idea that behaviour of macro & micro dilutions may indeed be different (even at low energies), as happens in other areas of physics.
In the early days, Avogadro's idea was challenged because anomalous behaviours were found in some organic solutions. This was put down to changes of state, and probably fudged, so Avogadro was accepted. I imagine science has moved on, but I can't find good references so can't be sure. I suspect there's a faction that doesn't want to see anomalies in print.
The usual assumption (often implicit & un-noticed) is that Ln is the inverse of the Standard charge (very relevant to your experiments, maybe).
Again, actually doing such an experiment (I did the Millikan oil-drop thing in the '60s at school) does not produce nicely cut&dried step functions; like anything it is (at least) noisy. Hidden in the noise may be significance, especially hidden if one is looking not to find it. The same, and a host of assumptions, applies to more modern methods, such as electrolysis. These are at fairly standard dilutions, too. I wonder what a high-dilute (super or sub-Ln, succussed or not) determination would produce?
Added to this, modern science has developed the habit of throwing away "anomalous" points in results. Sometimes hilariously so.
(Maths habitually throws away anything above 2nd order, again it is relevant to near "infinite" dilutions.)
So, what people imagine they "see" or detect as an atom (or molecule) is a highly "cleaned" signal, contributing to illusion. Making equipment to see atoms only, one sees atoms only.
I conjecture that some Korsakovian effect may be due to "holes" in the dilute, corresponding to where the chimera of a molecule might have been. It's almost certainly even theoretically undetectable using current methodologies (which simply re-enforces the delusion).
A thing worries me, that even "we" do not see. When we potentise most highly to produce more curative effect, as with LMs for example, why is the effect apparently gentler? There is a lot to learn in posology, an undeveloped science worth deeper investigation.
The skeptics say a high-dilute can do nothing because it is as weak as one putative molecule in a pond of water the size of the visible universe. By contrast I would say the succussion/potentisation is an amplification process, introducing extra energy, and so the power/strength of the preparation would accord to "something" as yet un-measurably approaching the scale of the visible universe - quite a different story!
What I see as a problem with my thinking, is that it would make such a preparation so enormously powerful that it would act as something of a sledgehammer. Perhaps such solutions are not anywhere near their saturated potential? Perhaps there are limits at each stage? Certainly, conventionally, one does only a few succussions (two to ten at relative low energy), although when I prepare remedies I often (not always) use a great many, thousands even, using mechanical apparatus. Even then a highly inefficient use of energy.
I hope some of my thoughts prove useful to you.
W. LaChenal, London July 2012
billachenal (@at) gmail (.) com
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your comments. Hope your thoughts will be useful for our future works in the subject.
R.Amin & B.Chakraborty
Post a Comment