Does Water Have A Memory?

[A-wal]

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.

[JMJones0424]

Why is the user identified as current still able to make posts to www.scienceforums.com?  When this community existed as hypography.com, I understood that our "mission statement" was science for all.  I can find no instance of a post made by the user known as current that either advances the understanding of science or that even acknowledges what science is.  FFS, we are on page 9 of what should have been a one page discussion.  There is no evidence that water has memory.  This is a fact.  Current has provided no evidence contrary to this fact.  Why is this community allowing idiocy to be presented as an alternative of reality on a forum that purports to be scientific? It seems to me that too many people are arguing about the best way to deal with an individual that proclaims to have evidence for facts that are not demonstrable and contradict all previously known observations.  I don't understand why this is a difficult position.  Current is either a moron or a liar.  Current repeatedly makes false claims, even after Current has been shown why the claims are false.  I don't understand why this is such a difficult distinction to make.

Edited March 30, 2017 by JMJones0424

[A-wal]

No it isn't a fact. There IS evidence for water in some sense, having memory. That is fact!

 

Whether or not there's any credible evidence is a different question entirely. It depends on how you define credible but the criteria here seems to be whether or not it supports something that the forum member believes to be true. Anyone who simply ignores claims based purely on belief and works backwards from their own assumptions (as some member obviously do) isn't acknowledging what science is and doesn't belong on a science forum. Science is supposed to be unbiased investigation into any potential aspect of nature with no restrictions or taboos.

 

I think the banner at the top of the page accidentally got cut short. The whole thing reads, HYPOGRAPHY: Science for everyone who doesn't question established scientific dogma regarding what's real.

[JMJones0424]

No.  Credible is a value judgement.  You claim there IS evidence that water has memory.  Please provide such evidence.  EDIT: While you're at it, please describe why it is that water has memory and not other molecules.  If it is your claim that all molecules have memory, then your claim contradicts everything we know about chemistry.  If your claim is that water is unique among other molecules and can retain memory, then your claim is still not supported, but it is at least not singular.  Your idea of the banner at the top is unsupported, as is your idea that water has memory.

Edited March 30, 2017 by JMJones0424

[A-wal]

Current has provided a few links to evidence that water has memory. I'm not saying that he has (or hasn't) provided links to any credible evidence.

[JMJones0424]

I didn't ask what Current provided.  You made a specific claim, "There IS evidence for water in some sense, having memory. That is fact!"

 

What evidence do you have to support your claim?

[A-wal]

You're not listening! There is evidence that water has memory. It's been linked by current so that DOES answer your question!

 

That the evidence isn't credible is your opinion. I'm not saying that your opinion is wrong or right, just that it's your opinion and that there is evidence that water has memory and that the validity of the evidence is a separate issue.

[JMJones0424]

If it has been linked by Current, then it would be a simple matter for you to copy such a link.  I do not wish to engage in a discussion with that which I think is your claimed evidence.  Please provide a direct link to the evidence that you use to support your claim that "There IS evidence for water in some sense, having memory. That is fact!"

 

I am listening.  The fact that I am responding to your posts is evidence of this fact.  I asked a simple question.

[A-wal]

Go to the first page, there's at least two links there that provide evidence. One is very easily refuted, the other is harder to refute unless there's some dishonesty on the pert of the experimenters, which is always possible.

[exchemist]

Go to the first page, there's at least two links there that provide evidence. One is very easily refuted, the other is harder to refute unless there's some dishonesty on the pert of the experimenters, which is always possible.

The strange thing is that, even having watched these videos and apparently finding their claims plausible, you seem very reluctant to whet the appetites of us sceptics by summarising in your own words what you think this evidence consists of. If I find something interesting, I am usually quite enthusiastic in describing it to others, to persuade them to take a similar interest.

 

Why can't you do that?  

[A-wal]

Because I've already done it, post #134.

 

They're not sceptics! I'm a sceptic because I'm not convinced by the claims or by the evidence presented in the video but I find the possibility interesting.

[exchemist]

Because I've already done it, post #134.

 

They're not sceptics! I'm a sceptic because I'm not convinced by the claims or by the evidence presented in the video but I find the possibility interesting.

Ah so you did. Thanks. What interests me, now,  is why, having read your post 134, I still do not find it worthwhile to watch the video.

 

I think it is because of this alleged claim of detection of a magnetic field. I am afraid I simply do not believe this, at all. It seems to be piling Pelion on Ossa - justifying one preposterous claim by making a second, equally preposterous, claim. I suppose I should investigate how they detected this magnetic field and what magnitude and type of field they claim to have detected. But it just seems to me so obviously horsesh1t that I really cannot be bothered. Magnetism is again one of these things that woo merchants love. I bet there is no description in this video of the detector or the signal, how they excluded sources of error and so forth. I expect there was a needle on a dial in the video that moves or something and that will be all.

 

Sorry, but not worth wasting 20 minutes for.  Call me closed-minded of you like, but I continue to trust my chemistry degree over some undocumented YouTube video making not just one but two preposterous claims.

[A-wal]

It's very odd that people seem so against the concept of objects emanating an electro-magnetic field (like auras) when it's obvious that they do. Infrared is part of the electro-magnetic spectrum and we know that all living things give off heat and therefore have an 'aura'. Liquid water is obviously holding (and presumably emitting) heat because it's not ice.

 

I'm not saying that this validate the claims in the video or shows that we have auras capable of holding the information that some people claim, but we do have auras and water does emit a detectable electro-magnetic field.

 

Edit:

He says in the video that he wants other scientists to replicate the experiment to see for themselves so presumably he gives full details on the methods he uses to measure the properties of the water. That's not in the video though.

Edited April 4, 2017 by A-wal

[exchemist]

It's very odd that people seem so against the concept of objects emanating an electro-magnetic field (like auras) when it's obvious that they do. Infrared is part of the electro-magnetic spectrum and we know that all living things give off heat and therefore have an 'aura'. Liquid water is obviously holding (and presumably emitting) heat because it's not ice.

 

I'm not saying that this validate the claims in the video or shows that we have auras capable of holding the information that some people claim, but we do have auras and water does emit a detectable electro-magnetic field.

 

Edit:

He says in the video that he wants other scientists to replicate the experiment to see for themselves so presumably he gives full details on the methods he uses to measure the properties of the water. That's not in the video though.

If you know the relevant physics and chemistry, then it is not odd at all. An "electromagnetic field" is not the same thing as emission of quanta of  thermal EM radiation. If these people were looking at the IR or microwave spectrum of the water, why would they be talking about an "electromagnetic field"? 

 

Magnetism in a substance requires moving electric charges, either due to a current or due to unpaired electrons in alignment, as in magnetised iron. You do not have either of these in neutral molecules in aqueous solution. 

 

If they were looking at IR or microwave emission, then they would show the viewer an IR or microwave spectrum, characteristic of the material at the temperature in question. Do they do that? I bet they don't.  

 

This is one of the (many) problems with videos like this. I am fairly confident the people that made that video will be unable even to articulate, in a  scientific way,  what they think they are looking at. 

[A-wal]

If you know the relevant physics and chemistry, then it is not odd at all. An "electromagnetic field" is not the same thing as emission of quanta of  thermal EM radiation. If these people were looking at the IR or microwave spectrum of the water, why would they be talking about an "electromagnetic field"?

I don't know why you're applying what I said to the video. You seem to be under the impression that I was in some way trying to justify the validity of measurements made in the video, how did you infer that? I think I was fairly clear.

I'm not saying that this validate the claims in the video or shows that we have auras capable of holding the information that some people claim, but we do have auras and water does emit a detectable electro-magnetic field.

Light can be thought of as an electro-magnetic field. Infrared is part of the light spectrum. If an object is emitting heat then that can be validly thought of as an electro-magnetic field.

 

Nothing to do with trying to validating any specific claims, I already said that the video doesn't give details about how the measurements are taken.

 

This is one of the (many) problems with videos like this. I am fairly confident the people that made that video will be unable even to articulate, in a  scientific way,  what they think they are looking at. 

Irrelevant, even if true. A lack of a proposed mechanism can't invalidate legitimate experimental results. If he wants people to replicate the experiment then he must give a detailed description of who he thinks the results can be replicated.

[exchemist]

I don't know why you're applying what I said to the video. You seem to be under the impression that I was in some way trying to justify the validity of measurements made in the video, how did you infer that? I think I was fairly clear.

Light can be thought of as an electro-magnetic field. Infrared is part of the light spectrum. If an object is emitting heat then that can be validly thought of as an electro-magnetic field.

 

Nothing to do with trying to validating any specific claims, I already said that the video doesn't give details about how the measurements are taken.

 

Irrelevant, even if true. A lack of a proposed mechanism can't invalidate legitimate experimental results. If he wants people to replicate the experiment then he must give a detailed description of who he thinks the results can be replicated.

Well all I'm pointing out is that a claim about detecting an "electromagnetic field" is pretty meaningless unless some of the issues I have mentioned can be clarified.

 

What is almost certain is that these people, at best -  i.e. if they are not engaged in active deception -  do not know what they are talking about and have no idea what they think they are detecting. This is just not going to convince anyone that they are seeing anything real.

 

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? 

[A-wal]

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

 

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.

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.