Does Water Have A Memory?

[A-wal]

Your short presence here is inadequate to make a qualified judgment of my assertions. By the time you came, this place was already on life support.  And you're no one to talk about insults, as your postings illustrate that it is a major tool in your box. Thanks for nothing. :thumbs_do

You're very welcome. Sometimes you need a hammer! I only ever react in that way when I feel that it's justified. It seems like everyone's so afraid of being labelled as a crank that they take every opportunity to pounce on anyone who shows any kind of doubt towards established ideas to the point where it's nothing short of bullying. When people are attacked in that way on line they react aggressively and it only encourages them to reject what they're being told and not budge from their own views because they're in combat mode. What you call 'cranks' are simply people with alternative (often ill-informed) views who would be a lot more open to learning from the members here if they were treated with a bit more respect.

 

I think if you re-read what I wrote it should be obvious what I am suggesting and what I am not suggesting. I made it very plain that expertise in a field is usually important, in order to have a good chance of doing a decent professional job. That is true of plumbers, lawyers and pilots, and there is no reason to think it any less true of scientific research. That's all.

 

I am amazed that you find this apparently controversial. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet of some sort.

No not at all. You seem to be scared that you dared show any kind of interest in something that's not been declared acceptable to be interested in and out to prove a point because of it.

 

I just think that claims and evidence should be treated on their own merits. What I find controversial (disgusting actually) is how rarely this seems happen.

 

Oh I do agree current is a waste of space. But he's not even a crank. He's just a troll - as you pointed out some time ago. 

I don't think he's a troll. I get the impression he believes in what he's saying, a troll is only out to cause trouble.

Edited March 23, 2017 by A-wal

[Turtle]

Getting back on topic, specifically the video, I repeat my earlier post. I expect nothing less than an addressing of the points therein from members, particularly from Current. Anything less is against our rules and I urge our legitimate members to utilize the Report function when posters go awry.

 

 

Critique on the video from 2011:

“Water memory” – a myth that wouldn’t die

Excerpts:

Naturally interested, I rushed to find a source for this awesome news about a phenomenon that could potentially change all our basic understanding of the physico-chemical nature of water and give a big fillip to Benveniste’s “water memory” theory that has been discredited several times over. I looked and looked, I really did. Did I find a journal article, a research paper, a scientific citation?

 

NO. All I found was a YouTube video.

...

[update dated December 11, 2012: A reader pointed this out: The correct name of the institute is The Institute for Static and Dynamics for aerospace constructions of the University of Stuttgart. Here is a website of the project: http://www.weltimtropfen.de; the site is in German (YAY for Google Translate!). Unfortunately, the website has no pertinent information about the experiments and methodologies. There are some nice photos of water droplets, but mere appearance of some photos is not evidence. That is not how science works.]

...

My critical antennae were screaming.

•We were not told how these images were taken: camera? Light microscope? EM? Could the different observations be image artefacts? Of note in this regard, scienceblogger Orac had a very interesting post on how heavy metal contaminants were mistaken for non-existent structures called nanocrystalloids by a group of pro-homeopathy scientists intents on proving the existence of “water memory”.

•We don’t know if the images were taken simultaneously or differently. For example, was the same slide used for 16 droplets shown on screen? If the slides were different, how were the variables on slide surface (grease/grime/effect of cleaning solution et cetera) controlled for?

•Since the water was pushed out through the needle, how was the volume of the droplet controlled for? It is not unexpected that different students would push the plunger with slightly different force and end up with different volumes on the slide.

•Did each student put the droplets simultaneously or was there a time gap between each set? How was the effect of this time gap controlled for, particularly since the main thesis of the experiment is based on the different appearance of water drops made by different students? The easiest control would have been to get a student to put water drops at two different times, after taking water from the same source.

...

Of course not. Silly me. But the next assertion was even more stupendous – that the Rhine carries all the information from the stuff dropping into it, and the Dutch, located at the mouth of the Rhine, drink all that information. Hoozzah! The Dutch have their very own information superhighway in their gut.

Those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it. :rolleyes:

 

[A-wal]

I need to make a few corrections.

First, I've just realised that the post where I warned Current about his phrasing might have come across in a way that was certainly not intentional. I didn't mean to imply that any of Exchemist's comments were in any way pathetic. Looking at again it could definitely be interpreted that way.

Second, when I said "It seems like everyone's so afraid of being labelled as a crank that they take every opportunity to pounce on anyone who shows any kind of doubt towards established ideas to the point where it's nothing short of bullying." It might have seemed like a ridiculous thing to say, even offencive when people are bullied on line in a way that is obviously incomparable. I meant it in the context of people that are members of a large group that know each other and share a similar outlook pouncing on anyone new who thinks differently to them and doing it in a way that's insulting and patronising.

Third, "What you call 'cranks' are simple people with alternative (often ill-informed) views" SIMPLY simple people with alternative (often ill-informed) views... Oops. :)

 

Getting back on topic, specifically the video, I repeat my earlier post. I expect nothing less than an addressing of the points therein from members, particularly from Current. Anything less is against our rules and I urge our legitimate members to utilize the Report function when posters go awry.

Please define 'legitimate' and 'awry'. Do you mean when a poster disagrees with your view you urge anyone who shares your view to click the report button in order to gang up on them?
 

That particular video, while very interesting, can in no way be considered as good evidence on it's own merits because there's too may unanswered questions. Any of these...

"We were not told how these images were taken: camera? Light microscope? EM? Could the different observations be image artefacts? Of note in this regard, scienceblogger Orac had a very interesting post on how heavy metal contaminants were mistaken for non-existent structures called nanocrystalloids by a group of pro-homeopathy scientists intents on proving the existence of “water memory”.

We don’t know if the images were taken simultaneously or differently. For example, was the same slide used for 16 droplets shown on screen? If the slides were different, how were the variables on slide surface (grease/grime/effect of cleaning solution et cetera) controlled for?

Since the water was pushed out through the needle, how was the volume of the droplet controlled for? It is not unexpected that different students would push the plunger with slightly different force and end up with different volumes on the slide.

Did each student put the droplets simultaneously or was there a time gap between each set? How was the effect of this time gap controlled for, particularly since the main thesis of the experiment is based on the different appearance of water drops made by different students? The easiest control would have been to get a student to put water drops at two different times, after taking water from the same source."

...potentially invalidates the video's claims, particularly the third one as it seems the most likely.

The other video on the other hand presents a very different pair of experiments in which the validity of the claim seems to be demonstrated very convincingly. If you're tempted to fall back on the fact that it's a video and are thinking of saying something along the lines of needed a paper to review to judge it properly then that won;t work because for the purpose of this discussion a video that actually shows the experiment is far more evidential than a paper that merely describes it. There's only three possibilities for the alleged evidence shown in that video that I'm aware of.

1. It's a genuine demonstration of the claim.

2. It's intentionally fraudulent.

3. The experiments are in some way flawed.

4. Non of the above.

Assuming that you choose 3 or 4 you need to justify that assertion. How is the experiment flawed exactly or what other explanation do you have for the apparent results?

So far all you've done is denied and ridiculed the claim with only quotes of somebody elses critiques of the weakest of the two videos, the one that one it's own obviously doesn't show any actual evidence of the claim. In other words step up son.

Edited March 23, 2017 by A-wal

[Turtle]

...

The other video on the other hand presents a very different pair of experiments in which the validity of the claim seems to be demonstrated very convincingly. If you're tempted to fall back on the fact that it's a video and are thinking of saying something along the lines of needed a paper to review to judge it properly then that won;t work because for the purpose of this discussion a video that actually shows the experiment is far more evidential than a paper that merely describes it. There's only three possibilities for the alleged evidence shown in that video that I'm aware of.

 

1. It's a genuine demonstration of the claim.

2. It's intentionally fraudulent.

3. The experiments are in some way flawed.

4. Non of the above.

 

Assuming that you choose 3 or 4 you need to justify that assertion. How is the experiment flawed exactly or what other explanation do you have for the apparent results?

...

Clearly the video I posted a review for is the one Current put in post #3, but you assume we know which video you mean by "the other video". Which "other" video are you referring to? The one in post #4, post #31, post #46, or post #47?

 

Moreover, you need to specify not only which video you refer to, but what specific claim(s) and which specific experiments and at what specific time-steps you are claiming something has been 'demonstrated very convincingly'. You also need to give a detailed description of your reasoning in your conclusion. Any less from you is as invalid as Current's approach of telling folks to 'just watch video x'.

 

The meme 'seeing is believing' is patently false and that's a principle reason that real science is conducted as it is.

Edited March 23, 2017 by Turtle

[OceanBreeze]

Critique on the video from 2011:

“Water memory” – a myth that wouldn’t die

Excerpts:

 

"But the next assertion was even more stupendous – that the Rhine carries all the information from the stuff dropping into it, and the Dutch, located at the mouth of the Rhine, drink all that information. Hoozzah! The Dutch have their very own information superhighway in their gut."

 

Those who fail to remember the past are doomed to repeat it. :rolleyes:

 

That’s encouraging. It seems someone else who actually watched the video had expressed exactly the same doubts and opposition to the nonsensical claims being made, that I did. But I still think they should have used the Ganges river for their example, instead of the Rhine; lots more data loaded into memory there.  

[exchemist]

You're very welcome. Sometimes you need a hammer! I only ever react in that way when I feel that it's justified. It seems like everyone's so afraid of being labelled as a crank that they take every opportunity to pounce on anyone who shows any kind of doubt towards established ideas to the point where it's nothing short of bullying. When people are attacked in that way on line they react aggressively and it only encourages them to reject what they're being told and not budge from their own views because they're in combat mode. What you call 'cranks' are simply people with alternative (often ill-informed) views who would be a lot more open to learning from the members here if they were treated with a bit more respect.

 

No not at all. You seem to be scared that you dared show any kind of interest in something that's not been declared acceptable to be interested in and out to prove a point because of it.

 

I just think that claims and evidence should be treated on their own merits. What I find controversial (disgusting actually) is how rarely this seems happen.

 

I don't think he's a troll. I get the impression he believes in what he's saying, a troll is only out to cause trouble.

But I have studied him far longer than you have....in other places.....

[A-wal]

That’s encouraging. It seems someone else who actually watched the video had expressed exactly the same doubts and opposition to the nonsensical claims being made, that I did. But I still think they should have used the Ganges river for their example, instead of the Rhine; lots more data loaded into memory there.  

Keep beating that strawman while completely ignoring the actual claim, that's helpful. :fool:

 

Clearly the video I posted a review for is the one Current put in post #3, but you assume we know which video you mean by "the other video". Which "other" video are you referring to? The one in post #4, post #31, post #46, or post #47?

Oh sorry, I didn't realise he'd linked more. I meant this one.https://youtu.be/R8VyUsVOic0

 

Moreover, you need to specify not only which video you refer to, but what specific claim(s) and which specific experiments and at what specific time-steps you are claiming something has been 'demonstrated very convincingly'. You also need to give a detailed description of your reasoning in your conclusion. Any less from you is as invalid as Current's approach of telling folks to 'just watch video x'.

I should have quoted this from my earlier post.

Yea it definitely looks like they've got something if you take their results at face value. Without knowing the details it's obviously impossible to say that's it's valid but the way it's described it seems to conclusively show that water is capable of storing certain types of information.

 

They go through two experiments. In the first one DNA molecules are diluted out of the water and the water apparently gives off an electro-magnetic signal that matches the DNA. In the second experiment the send a signal to water that includes the building blocks for DNA and it assembles itself into DNA that's a 98% match to the original. Very cool if there's no shenanigans.

 

They do give a vague hypothesis for a mechanism at 26:26.

 

The meme 'seeing is believing' is patently false and that's a principle reason that real science is conducted as it is.

Yea, because it makes it easier for relatively small group of people to make bullshit (like dark energy) seem credible and censor anything that contradicts it. To do real world science you need to do it in the real world, it's called evidence. A paper is a written description of something, that's not evidence.

 

I'm not saying that the water memory claim is true, just that I think it's a very interesting claim and deserves more attention. Science is supposed to be about following the evidence wherever it takes you, not rejecting anything that contradicts your beliefs.

[Turtle]

Oh sorry, I didn't realize[sic] he'd linked more. I meant this one.https://youtu.be/R8VyUsVOic0

...

Yea, because it makes it easier for relatively small group of people to make bullshit (like dark energy) seem credible and censor anything that contradicts it. To do real world science you need to do it in the real world, it's called evidence. A paper is a written description of something, that's not evidence.

I'm not saying that the water memory claim is true, just that I think it's a very interesting claim and deserves more attention. Science is supposed to be about following the evidence wherever it takes you, not rejecting anything that contradicts your beliefs.

 

That's only a partial answer, and insufficient. I asked, "Moreover, you need to specify not only which video you refer to, but what specific claim(s) and which specific experiments and at what specific time-steps you are claiming something has been 'demonstrated very convincingly'. You also need to give a detailed description of your reasoning in your conclusion. Any less from you is as invalid as Current's approach of telling folks to 'just watch video x'." Your rigor is flaccid.

 

No legitimate peer review process would accept just a video as evidence, in spite of that contradicting your belief.

[Turtle]

That’s encouraging. It seems someone else who actually watched the video had expressed exactly the same doubts and opposition to the nonsensical claims being made, that I did. But I still think they should have used the Ganges river for their example, instead of the Rhine; lots more data loaded into memory there.  

 

Given Donny's proclivity for nonsensical claims, it's a reasonable bet that water memory is at the bottom of the Moscow golden shower escapades.  A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Drink deep, or taste not the Peeing Stream;

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

and drinking largely sobers us again. ~Alexander Poopin

[A-wal]

That's only a partial answer, and insufficient. I asked, "Moreover, you need to specify not only which video you refer to, but what specific claim(s) and which specific experiments and at what specific time-steps you are claiming something has been 'demonstrated very convincingly'. You also need to give a detailed description of your reasoning in your conclusion. Any less from you is as invalid as Current's approach of telling folks to 'just watch video x'."

That's bullshit. I asked you to clarify your reasoning for rejecting the claim of the video so that we can actually have a discussion: It's intentionally fraudulent/The experiments are in some way flawed/Something else. I suspect your real reasons are because the claim is not officially accepted and/or you simply don;t like the idea. I don't mind giving more details before you decide though, I'll need to watch it again.

 

I said "seems to be demonstrated very convincingly". Taking part of the sentence in a way that presents the quote out of context only demonstrates intellectual dishonesty.

 

No legitimate peer review process would accept just a video as evidence, in spite of that contradicting your belief.

It doesn't in any way contradict any of my beliefs, I know very well that a video is not appropriate for the peer review process. I have no idea why you think the peer review process is relevant to what I said. A video showing an experiment that demonstrates what's being claimed is evidence of the claim's validity, a paper is evidence of the person's ability to form sentences.

Edited March 23, 2017 by A-wal

[exchemist]

Given Donny's proclivity for nonsensical claims, it's a reasonable bet that water memory is at the bottom of the Moscow golden shower escapades.  A little learning is a dangerous thing.

Drink deep, or taste not the Peeing Stream;

There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

and drinking largely sobers us again. ~Alexander Poopin

Pootin, surely? :)

[exchemist]

Keep beating that strawman while completely ignoring the actual claim, that's helpful. :fool:

 

Oh sorry, I didn't realise he'd linked more. I meant this one.https://youtu.be/R8VyUsVOic0

 

I should have quoted this from my earlier post.

 

Yea, because it makes it easier for relatively small group of people to make bullshit (like dark energy) seem credible and censor anything that contradicts it. To do real world science you need to do it in the real world, it's called evidence. A paper is a written description of something, that's not evidence.

 

I'm not saying that the water memory claim is true, just that I think it's a very interesting claim and deserves more attention. Science is supposed to be about following the evidence wherever it takes you, not rejecting anything that contradicts your beliefs.

All very true and noble.  But it is your last sentence that does the work here. First, you need evidence to follow. 

 

The practical problem here is that this area is chock-full of hucksters and frauds, all trying to make a buck out of the gullible and prey on their health anxieties. If you google water memory and related topics, as I did fairly extensively when trying to follow up this Pollack guy you put me onto (who is a genuine scientist, but makes no claims about water memory), you will find over 90% of the returns are obvious commercial come-ons, based on deliberate misrepresentation of science. This subject area is absolutely full of sh1t.  

 

So, to get real for a moment, how likely is it that a known anti-science troll* comes here with a YouTube video  - of unknown provenance and unsupported by any documentation - that actually has, for once, real, objective, serious science on the subject?  Me, I was not born yesterday.  

 

 

 

 * I realise this is special knowledge I bring to the party that you did not have - though you may be starting to realise it from your own experience.

[Turtle]

Pootin, surely? :)

D'oh! Me and my typos.

[current]

 

A-wal thanks for the support and warning , taken .

 

I just thought that introducing the idea that water could very well have memory and there is more than one video on youtube on the subject that perhaps the natural curiosity of some or many , just might find it , INTERESTING enough to at least investigate the claim .

 

Perhaps not .

 

But what I liked about the videos , instead of just talking about this idea , is the physical evidence given by the videos . The change in the structure of the dried water drop , depending upon the enviroment .

 

Now of course it goes against mainstream chemistry , and the presenters know this , and so do I , I thought though it was very interesting . And so it should be .

 

Nobody , I mean , nobody , has the absolute definitive answer at this point in Human science history of investigation and research on water or any ology of study.

 

Hence I stay open to new ideas and research into these new ideas . As it should be for any person interested in science and therefore understanding Nature .

 

current

[A-wal]

https://youtu.be/R8VyUsVOic0

 

11:10: DNA molecules are added to water and then diluted out to the point where there shouldn't be any DNA molecules left and then ten tubes of the diluted water and ten tubes of normal water are given to the him so he doesn't know which are which and he is apparently able to find two of the diluted tubes by measuring their electro-magnetic fields (< 25% random chance), all the other eighteen tubes give negative results. The information from the electro-magnetic fields of the two positive results is then digitised.

18:32: A tube of purified water is exposed to the digitised signal from the electromagnetic fields before adding nucleotides and an enzyme to the tube which then seem to spontaneously form DNA that's a 98% match to the original.

A lack of a proposed mechanism wouldn't in any way invalidate the results because the results still occurred but they do give a possible mechanism at 26:26.

He claims this experiment can easily be replicated by other scientists that are willing to try.

 

The practical problem here is that this area is chock-full of hucksters and frauds, all trying to make a buck out of the gullible and prey on their health anxieties. If you google water memory and related topics, as I did fairly extensively when trying to follow up this Pollack guy you put me onto (who is a genuine scientist, but makes no claims about water memory), you will find over 90% of the returns are obvious commercial come-ons, based on deliberate misrepresentation of science. This subject area is absolutely full of sh1t.

Yes but that in no way invalidates any genuine science that might have investigated the claim.

 

So, to get real for a moment, how likely is it that a known anti-science troll* comes here with a YouTube video  - of unknown provenance and unsupported by any documentation - that actually has, for once, real, objective, serious science on the subject?  Me, I was not born yesterday.

If the claim is genuine then it's not surprising at all that somebody made a video demonstrating it and that it would show up on a youtube search when somebody (troll or not) typed in 'water memory'. I don't see how the claim looses any credibility because of who happened to provide the link. You obviously have a history and issues with Current but that has nothing to do with the claim that water can retain information, it's not just his claim.

[Turtle]

https://youtu.be/R8VyUsVOic0

 

11:10: DNA molecules are added to water and then diluted out to the point where there shouldn't be any DNA molecules left

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.

 

...

and then ten tubes of the diluted water and ten tubes of normal water are given to the him so he doesn't know which are which and he is apparently able to find two of the diluted tubes by measuring their electro-magnetic fields (< 25% random chance), all the other eighteen tubes give negative results. The information from the electro-magnetic fields of the two positive results is then digitised.

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.

 

18:32: A tube of purified water is exposed to the digitised signal from the electromagnetic fields before adding nucleotides and an enzyme to the tube which then seem to spontaneously form DNA that's a 98% match to the original.

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

 

A lack of a proposed mechanism wouldn't in any way invalidate the results because the results still occurred but they do give a possible mechanism at 26:26.

He claims this experiment can easily be replicated by other scientists that are willing to try.

Well, we are told the results occurred, but in fact we don't know that from the video because we don't know what goes on during scene cuts.

 

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.

[OceanBreeze]

 

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.

 

 

 

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

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

Gosh. :shocked: 

 

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: 

 

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. And, unfortunately this forum has more than its fair share of such people.

 

For those who don't like to follow links:

 

So, 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?

 

Bonkers.

 

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.

 

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. 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.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 But I suppose we can argue about it some more, there isn't much else going on here, is there?