Talk:Homeopathy/Bibliography

Disputes the current view of the majority of spectroscopists and theorists that the molecule in the liquid is surrounded tetrahedrally by 4 other water molecules.

Paul, I'd like to know where you see that. It seems to me that this is the basis for everybody including this scientist, i.e. the structure of the water molecules, and that Roy explains that the structure of water is another question, at another scale. I'll leave your edit as is, but please explain this to me because I'm puzzled. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 16:37, 29 September 2008 (CDT)

Pierre, I'm not sure that I understand your question. I thought that your point was that liquid water preserves the structure it has obtained from succusion (shaking/knocking)? My point is that liquid water (at room temperature) obtains its natural state within a few picoseconds after it is left to itself, regardless of any prior knocking.

Please read this review article from Berkeley for a view on the structure of water clusters that I share completely. I rather discuss the Berkeley paper than the Roy paper. Don't forget when reading the Berkeley paper that "gaseous" water stands for water in a supersonic molecular beam (temperature around 5 K, i.e., near the absolute zero of temperature).

You changed my wording on qi. May I remind you that I simply shortened the following sentence (p. 600):

[...] before and after implantation of “qi,” or intention, by Dr. Yan Xin, the best known of China’s Qigong grandmasters.

You say that this paragraph is minor. However, Figs. 16 and 17 are the only figures in Roy's paper related to experiments on liquid water. All the other figures are either "cartoons" (which, of course, don't prove anything) or pertain to other materials (such as glass, sulfur, and Y-TZP/Bi2O3-CuO-V2O5). Honestly, it escapes me what, for instance, the phase diagram of sulfur (Fig. 4) has to do with the structure of liquid water (or with homeopathy, for that matter).

In contrast, the Berkeley paper is solely about water, not about other materials that may or may not have any connection with water. Compare the references of the Berkeley and the Roy paper: Berkeley has 271 references to peer reviewed articles in reputable journals, all from the last two or three decades and all about water. Roy has 117 references, many of them very old (even prewar) and many of them about other materials. I tried to locate refs. 71, 72, and 73, because they are relevant for the structure of liquid water: they are not available at any of the 14 university libraries in The Netherlands; that is what I call obscure references.

Finally, I want to say that this discussion is diverting me from writing articles for CZ, so it is better that I stop it. The only reason I started it, is that I object against unqualified statements in CZ that smack of superstition. I cared too much for CZ to let that pass. But, I see now that at the end of the day CZ is much like WP, the one with the most stamina and tenacity get his or her way.

--Paul Wormer 04:45, 30 September 2008 (CDT)

I am asking you a simple question

I won't respond to your response, since you clearly stated your intentions:

Finally, I want to say that this discussion is diverting me from writing articles for CZ, so it is better that I stop it. The only reason I started it, is that I object against unqualified statements in CZ that smack of superstition. I cared too much for CZ to let that pass. But, I see now that at the end of the day CZ is much like WP, the one with the most stamina and tenacity get his or her way.

If you cannot support your sentence, (Rustum Roy et al.) "Disputes the current view of the majority of spectroscopists and theorists that the molecule in the liquid is surrounded tetrahedrally by 4 other water molecules", which is a very serious attack on some of your peers (maybe I'm mistaken, but hey, they could tell you if you read properly their work), if you cannot support with a quote or a page number, you will demonstrate a lack of professionalism justifying constable intervention.

Pierre, I'm not sure that I understand your question. I thought that your point was that liquid water preserves the structure it has obtained from succusion (shaking/knocking)? My point is that liquid water (at room temperature) obtains its natural state within a few picoseconds after it is left to itself, regardless of any prior knocking.

To most observers, this should make clear that you did not pay attention to what Roy, Chaplin and Nobel physics laureate Brian Josephson say. It's been addressed in CZ. And it is not "my point". Your point has been addressed 10 years ago, at least, and changing pico to femto or atto, or whatever, will not make your point better or worse.

First and foremost, I urge to back your claim. Take your time. I use my stamina more wisely than you suggest. --Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 17:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)