Does Water Have A Memory?

[exchemist]

Yes of course I do but you're making a lot of assumptions.

 

What makes you think that they haven't done this?

 

You're rejecting the claim based on the nature of the claim itself, not on whether it has scientific merit (as defined by evidence rather that what you believe to be absurd).

 

It's either something real, a deception or incompetence. You're very quick to assume the latter, or fraud if that's not the case while totally ignoring the possibility of the former without knowing a thing about the detail of the experiment or the evidence (whether valid or not) that it produced.

 

At best you're saying that you simply don't believe such a thing can be true. That's fair enough but it's just your opinion until you find evidence of deception or find a design flaw in the experiment which you won't do because you don't believe that it's worth your time. That's fair enough too I just hope that other people don't share your revulsion and actually manage to replicate the results because that would be very cool.

 

Most scientists would still try to deny it because no amount of evidence can convince people who would rather not believe, that's why religion is still around.

 

I just wasn't born yesterday.

 

Look, I've made pretty clear what I would need to see, in order to take this seriously: a clear claim, scientifically expressed, and supported by proper rigour in description of the setup and precautions against error. It is no more than what anyone else with a science background would expect. There is nothing unreasonable or dogmatic about it. 

[A-wal]

And I agreed that's exactly what would be required for the claim to have any validity. You're assuming this hasn't been done. Maybe it hasn't, I haven't checked but seeing as he's challenging other scientists to perform the experiments themselves I assume that he gives a detailed description of the experiment so that it can be replicated. If not then it probably is fraud.

[OceanBreeze]

 

Write-ups of real scientific experiments go to considerable lengths to describe the procedures, the equipment, the sources of error considered and the precautions taken to ensure that any data produced are genuinely due to the phenomenon under investigation. This makes them very dry to read, but it has the merit that what the experimenters have done can be scrutinised by others for faults, and can be replicated elsewhere, by other people, to make sure it is real. That is how real science works. 

 

When someone makes two remarkable claims, both contrary to the whole of chemistry as we know it today, don't you think they ought to have made at least some effort along these lines, if they were serious? 

 

 

Two remarkable claims? I counted at least three, and that is a conservative count!

Count them:

If you were to watch the video (and I do NOT encourage you to do this, as it is an enormous waste of time), you will find that the claim being made is nothing less than teleportation of DNA via radio waves. The DNA molecule is diluted in water to a degree where it should no longer exist, (homeopathy) then it gives off a “signal” that is hidden in the usual electrical noise and never defined or identified in any way (radionics); this signal is used to modulate a radio wave which is then transmitted some miles away, then demodulated at the receiving end, played back into a vile of water and the DNA molecule is reconstructed (teleportation).

 

Regarding the EM field, certainly we are aware of black body radiation, and there is also a magnetic Seebeck effect, whereby a magnetic field is generated as electrons in a conductive medium move in response to a temperature gradient.

 

But it is clear that none of these things can be presented in evidence to support the claims being made in this case as neither of these types of “signals” can or do carry the amount of information needed to make this claim not laughable, let alone plausible.

[exchemist]

And I agreed that's exactly what would be required for the claim to have any validity. You're assuming this hasn't been done. Maybe it hasn't, I haven't checked but seeing as he's challenging other scientists to perform the experiments themselves I assume that he gives a detailed description of the experiment so that it can be replicated. If not then it probably is fraud.

OK, we are rather flogging to this to death so maybe we'd better stop. We are really arguing about where the dividing line lies, in that aphorism about being open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out. If anyone can find a link to a proper scientific description of what this experiment is, how it is done, what is measured etc., I'll be happy to read that in a serious spirit of enquiry. But you are right, I AM assuming this hasn't been done.

 

What I am doing I guess is to back the predictions of the chemistry and physics I have learned against these outlandish claims. I suppose I am implicitly demanding, in the words of that other hoary old cliche, that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".     

[A-wal]

Regarding the EM field, certainly we are aware of black body radiation, and there is also a magnetic Seebeck effect, whereby a magnetic field is generated as electrons in a conductive medium move in response to a temperature gradient.

 

But it is clear that none of these things can be presented in evidence to support the claims being made in this case as neither of these types of “signals” can or do carry the amount of information needed to make this claim not laughable, let alone plausible.

If experimental results are valid then no amount of scoffing (it would be an insult to true sceptics to call what you do scepticism) at the lack of an understood mechanism can invalidate those results, regardless of the size of the text you use.

 

OK, we are rather flogging to this to death so maybe we'd better stop. We are really arguing about where the dividing line lies, in that aphorism about being open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out. If anyone can find a link to a proper scientific description of what this experiment is, how it is done, what is measured etc., I'll be happy to read that in a serious spirit of enquiry. But you are right, I AM assuming this hasn't been done.

 

What I am doing I guess is to back the predictions of the chemistry and physics I have learned against these outlandish claims. I suppose I am implicitly demanding, in the words of that other hoary old cliche, that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".     

All claims should require the same level of evidence. 'Extraordinary claim' is subjective, evidence isn't. I don't see how any amount of chemistry and physics knowledge regarding known processes can rule out possible unknown ones. I'm not arguing for water memory specifically, it's the principle and the obvious fact that the validity of the claim is being judged on the nature of the claim rather on the evidence. Is that science? Seems much more like allowing a belief system to overrule science.

[exchemist]

If experimental results are valid then no amount of scoffing (it would be an insult to true sceptics to call what you do scepticism) at the lack of an understood mechanism can invalidate those results, regardless of the size of the text you use.

 

All claims should require the same level of evidence. 'Extraordinary claim' is subjective, evidence isn't. I don't see how any amount of chemistry and physics knowledge regarding known processes can rule out possible unknown ones. I'm not arguing for water memory specifically, it's the principle and the obvious fact that the validity of the claim is being judged on the nature of the claim rather on the evidence. Is that science? Seems much more like allowing a belief system to overrule science.

You are strictly speaking right that no theory of science can "rule out" something 100%. The provisional nature of all theories in science prevents that from being the case, as a matter of logic.

 

Nevertheless, we live in a world of shades of grey and in such a world 99% certainty is pretty strong. Since the whole point of a theory is to predict what we can expect from nature, when you assert something that contradicts many predictions at once, you need to be very, very sure of your facts and your methodology, because the chance you are wrong is very high. Any scientist understands that.  And of course there are many famous examples of this in action - perhaps you recall the Italian research that appeared for a while to show particles travelling faster than light. The newspapers got very excited for a while, but the scientists were properly cautious and in the end it turned out to be an artifact of the procedure. Same with cold fusion, which in the end has proved unreproducible, just as theory predicted. 

 

There are surprising breakthroughs that confound previous predictions, but all of them have withstood a rigorous process of scrutiny. 

Edited April 6, 2017 by exchemist

[current]

You are strictly speaking right that no theory of science can "rule out" something 100%. The provisional nature of all theories in science prevents that from being the case, as a matter of logic.

 

Nevertheless, we live in a world of shades of grey and in such a world 99% certainty is pretty strong. Since the whole point of a theory is to predict what we can expect from nature, when you assert something that contradicts many predictions at once, you need to be very, very sure of your facts and your methodology, because the chance you are wrong is very high. Any scientist understands that.  And of course there are many famous examples of this in action - perhaps you recall the Italian research that appeared for a while to show particles travelling faster than light. The newspapers got very excited for a while, but the scientists were properly cautious and in the end it turned out to be an artifact of the procedure. Same with cold fusion, which in the end has proved unreproducible, just as theory predicted. 

 

There are surprising breakthroughs that confound previous predictions, but all of them have withstood a rigorous process of scrutiny.

 

I understand your point ;

 

The thing is , is that , water is not well understood . Sure chemically one can describe the bonds and geometry of the molecule , i get this .

 

But what is interesting about water is what organics and sound , can do to the structure of water its self . The influence of both can change the geometry of what we see under the microscope .

 

The pattern of water that is bad and the pattern , or geometry , of good water , which is shown in the youtube videos is strickingly different .

 

Which is held by the water its self . How long ? Is a question . But regardless the influence of the environment of which water is in , MATTERS .

 

One can then imagine the more water is in a certain environment the longer in influence this environment has on water its self .

 

Hence the water has a memory imprinted by the environment in which it is in .