Jump to content

- - - - -

Does Water Have A Memory?

  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#137 A-wal



  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted Yesterday, 06:07 PM

Shouldn't be? But in fact, they do not make tests at each stage to find out how much DNA is actually there. At time-step 12:30 the narrator says if they did 24 dilutions it would be equivalent to diluting 1 drop of DNA in the Atlantic ocean, and yet, that one drop would still be in the ocean and without testing there would be no way to tell exactly where that one drop was. Dilution is not elimination.

Yea, shouldn't be. You can never be sure by using dilution that the original substance is completely gone but each time it was diluted by a factor of ten and it was done ten times. Each time the experiment is performed is decreases the odds by exponentially. The dilution method is more than rigorous enough for this experiment. Your objection is invalid. Besides, if the results of the second part of the experiment are valid then it automatically proves that the results of the first part are as well.


We don't know whether he actually knows or not, rather we must take their word for it. Irreproducible result. Also, 'apparently able to find' is hardly a rigorous description or operation.

So you're going for the intentionally fraudulent option? It might be, I can't argue with that because I wasn't there. Shouldn't the fact that he's a Nobel prize winner and at least one other Nobel prize winner is involved in the experiments give the whole thing more creditably in your eyes seeing as how quick you lot are to use somebody's lack of credentials when it suits you?


If water has a memory, how exactly can it be purified, i.e. lose its memory?

I was wondering that myself, they don't go into that at all. A limited memory duration maybe.


And then, there is no accounting for contaminants on the exterior of the tubes which will affect the readings of the sensor on which the tubes are placed. The tubes after all have now undergone multiple handlings by multiple folks through multiple holders and in ambient air and using bare hands as @ time-step 14:09.

Well if the DNA obtained at the end of the experiment is a good match to the original DNA then it's redundant. Knowing how these programs tend to be made, some of it was probably shot after the experiment anyway.


So, while you may find that the video 'demonstrated very convincingly' water memory, I do not. One might understandably imagine that other scientists find no value in attempting (trying) to reproduce results from a flawed experiment.

There you go again, misquoting me in a deliberate (on purpose) attempt to present what I said out of it's original context (the way it was actually meant). It seems you're so used to being intellectually dishonest that you can't even see how bad it makes you look to people who aren't. That's okay, you're only harming yourself, just a heads up.


An independent team, at the request of DARPA did actually try.

The result? Our team found no replicable effects from digital signals.

Gosh. :shocked:

That's good, finally something that constitutes a real refutation of the claim. It doesn't invalid the original claim though because if both experiments are legit then the claim is true, in the right conditions. It's definitely evidence against it though.


Hey, if a single DNA molecule can emit an electromagnetic field, where does the energy come from? Maybe we need Deshoe to come back to explain that? :surprise:

That would be nice, although I seriously doubt that a single molecule could emit a measurable electro-magnetic field. They didn't use just a single molecule.


Here is a nice critique of the experiment you see in the video. This is just two crackpot ideas (Radionics and homeopathy) rolled into one package for the terminally gullible.

Homoeopathy? That's equivalent to saying that astronomy and astrophysics are forms of astrology!


This is just two crackpot ideas (Radionics and homeopathy) rolled into one package for the terminally gullible. And, unfortunately this forum has more than its fair share of such people.

How can it possibly be gullible to remain open to a claim's validity while also being open to the possibility that it could be bollocks? Simply rejecting something purely on the grounds that it hasn't been cleared as officially accepted by a small group of people with their own agendas and interests who are operating from within a broken system on the other hand is extremely gullible, and yes this forum does have a worrying number of very gullible members who instead thinking for themselves just let other people tell them what to believe.


o, Montagnier is proposing that these electromagnetic signals are only given off by pathogenic organisms. This assertion cries out the question – pathogenic to whom? Are we to believe that these DNA signals are only given off by infectious agents to humans? That would be a most staggering claim. What about infectious agents for other species? Do they not get handy radio signals too? And what if a particular human has specific immunity to a virus? Does the DNA sequence somehow know that it must switch off its broadcasts?

I don't think he ever makes that claim. He discovered the HIV virus so it only makes sense that he's working with something that he knows very well.


This is to leave aside how DNA could actually transmit radio waves. The generation of such a signal would require an oscillating current at the right frequency. How this could be achieved by a sequence of DNA is unanswered – probably because it is physically absurd.

No idea and I don't know if he gives an explanation but a lack of a proposed mechanism can in no way invalidate genuine experimental results.


The experimental apparatus itself looks decidedly amateurish with  the central detection mechanism appearing to be a coil of wire plugged into the soundcard of a PC via a device claimed to be invented by another infamous Frenchman, J Benveniste (previous IgNobel winner). Few details are given about this device.


It would appear, at first glance, to be a device designed to pick up background radio emissions. Indeed, the signals appears to be strong around the frequencies emitted by mains equipment and the paper does indeed mention that these signals disappear when attempts are removed to reduce background noise (such as by switching off other equipment). However, rather than conclude that the device is merely picking up noise, the paper asserts that the background noise is required to induce ‘resonance phenomena’. Your chin should be beginning to itch here.


Er, wtf? They tried to limit the amount of background radiation so that it wouldn't drown out the signal. I have no idea what's being referred to here.


It does indeed look as if the experimental result are the result of digging around in the noise and finding signals at the limit of detection – a classical hallmark of pathological science where an unblinded researcher keeps probing noise until they convince themselves they are seeing signals. (see N-rays for a parallel, ‘discovered’ by yet another Frenchman, the physicist René-Prosper Blondlot.)

Reminds me of the W-map where the margin of error was greater than the detected radiation and yet it was held up as confirmation of the big bang model.