Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:05, 14 June 2009

If you leave a comment for me here, I will respond here and will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template unless you are likely to be watching this page. If I have left a comment for you on your talk page, expect that I will be watching your page and you should reply there (if you wish) rather than here. This way, conversations are kept in their proper context. However, if your talk page policy is different than mine, I may follow your preferred style of conversation. I reserve the right to delete or archive (but will not otherwise modify) any comments left here.

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2.

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Cavity QED from homeopathy page

Regarding your last post on the homeopathy thread, cavity QED and sonoluminescence are two different phenomena. Sonoluminescence requires degassing of a sample of water and application of sonic waves to generate bubbles (or a bubble) with diameters on the micrometer scale. The light emitted in such situations is thermal in origin, resulting from the rapid compression of appropriate gas molecules upon collapse of the bubble. There is no evidence that these bubbles can be generated without ultrasonic excitation, or that the behavior is observed in samples which have simply been shaken. Cavity QED deals with the altered relaxation of excited molecules when they are enclosed in a cavity. Agin, there is no evidence, nor theoretically plausible mechanism, for suggesting that simple shaking of water will lead to these excited states, nor that shaking leads to altered cavitation, not that delayed photon emission would have any pharmacological effect upon drinking of the shaken water. Your proposition requires that a lot of remarkably unlikely and unfounded "what ifs" were all to happen. I'm still baffled at how, instead of simply acknowledging that homeopathy doesn't work (as has been thoroughly demonstrated), every imaginable esoteric physical process is invoked as the mechanism by which this non-observable phenomenon occurs.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Succussion is not shaking, it is forceful striking. Just as striking a rod of iron induces magnetic effects, but shaking a rod of iron does nothing. You do not have to tell me that cavity QED and sonoluminescence are two things. You need to learn more about both. —Whig (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

O.K., so you've redefined succession for me. But if you are going to make these claims about how your definition of succession should lead to a transfer of information to the solvent, you need to come up with a realistic theory as to how this happens. You're suggesting cavity QED or sonoluminescence, but have not shown any evidence to suggest that either should come into play from "forceful striking" of water. My reading more into these two phenomena will not change the fact that you have quite arbitrarily thrown them out there without any justification for why they should be considered as playing any role in this whole process. There is sound experimental evidence and theory which explains why struck iron rods or vibrating guitar strings generate magnetic fields, There is none to suggest that succession will lead to either excited state chemistry or sonoluminescence. Don't tell me to read more about these topics, give me a reason (references) why I should even consider that they would be involved in this process. Puddin'head Wilson (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC).

I haven't redefined a thing. Nothing I have said is arbitrary. Your denialism of homeopathy is obvious, and you are not willing to be convinced of effectiveness, therefore any physical mechanism will be rejected by you out of hand. —Whig (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Convince me. Without any supporting evidence, everything you have claimed herein is arbitrary. You may as well have said that Leprechauns are responsible for homeopathic activity, because you would have been able to offer just as much evidence for it, which of course is no evidence at all. You suggest that, because I refute your unfounded arguments that I will clearly not accept any argument and that my criticism should therefor be dismissed. I'm certain there is a logical fallacy in there. Thanks for wasting my time.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Convince you of effectiveness? You are welcome to be convinced yourself, would you like me to suggest a remedy? If you are asking to be convinced of the physical mechanism when you deny the possibility of any physical mechanism, in spite of clear physical proof of sonoluminescence in cavitation and cavity QED photon binding occurring in laboratory apparatus, perhaps you can explain why photon binding would not occur in cavitating by succussion. —Whig (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Proper controlled studies offer evidence of effectiveness, one person deluding himself does not. I'm not asking for evidence of sonoluminescence as a real phenomenon, but evidence that this effect can be observed from succession. The onus is not mine to suggest why photon binding does not occur during succession, You are making the claim and therefor need to support it with evidence. Show me a paper in a reputable journal that suggests that succession leads to cavitation and that it also causes excited state molecules to exist in these cavities. I don't understand why you're having such a hard time comprehending how this whole "burden of proof" thing works.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating that you have no interest in being convinced of anything. As I have said before I don't know of papers which discuss homeopathy in these terms, therefore I cannot provide you with the only thing that apparently will convince you of the fact that the same laws of physics apply in cavitation cavities as in artificially created cavities.

By the way, please have at least the seriousness to learn how to spell succussion when discussing this topic in the future. Thanks. —Whig (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I have every interest in being convinced by appropriate evidence, but in every response you have posted, you have offered no supporting evidence but simply tell me that I don't want to hear your evidence. Let me see it and I'll let you know if it impresses me.

First, the origin of the cavities is not my concern, although you have repeatedly made the unsupported assertion that succession has some effect on cavity formation, and I would like to see references for any of these statements. Hell, I'm even willing to concede that this *might* be possible, but only if there is experimental evidence to support it. Second, I do not need references about cavity QED and how it relates to homeopathy. What I want is a reference which suggests that vigorous shaking of water will lead to the excited electronic states that the cavity QED phenomenon requires.

http://www.google.com.ag/search?hl=en&q=homeopathy+succession&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

Follow the above link to a google search based on the words "homeopathy and succession'. Many, many homeopathy proponents use the term "succession". If the field were to normalize its jargon, I might be able to keep up on what is the preferred spelling.Puddin'head Wilson (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Google searches for ignorance are not evidence of correct spelling, and you persist in referring to shaking when that is not what succussion is. That succussion causes cavitation is uncontroversial. That cavitation causes photons to be emitted is uncontroversial. That cavity QED applies in all cavity domains is uncontroversial. That you refuse to observe the evidence for yourself by simply perceiving the effect of the remedy is the reason you cannot see it. You are not engaging in any attempt to learn, but to lecture on things you clearly refuse to learn anything about. Go away. Thanks. —Whig (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Snap!

jokes and stuff

I removed NRen2k5's comment and your reply. He was just making a parody of Dr.Jhingaadey, not a serious affirmation that he believed in homeopathy (that winking smiley at the end was a good clue that he didn't mean what he said). My excuses I my removal was rough, it's just that article talk pages shouldn't be used to make jokes about banned users, and the whole thing was off-topic anyways, since, as you pointed out yourself, it had nothing to do with improving the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I recognized he was trying to mock, but tried to get things back on track. I do not disagree with removing his comment and therefore my reply. —Whig (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Trolls and email

Re – I know what you mean; I was going to comment per email, but you don't have it enabled. So let me just say without presenting any evidence or other background information that I am 100 % sure the user is genuine. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll look into re-enabling e-mail. I don't really know what you mean to say the user is genuine, or do you mean you are certain the new unnamed IP user is not DrJ? —Whig (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. He really believes it and has his own practice. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We cannot know what he believes, and have no way to verify his claim. —Whig (talk) 04:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But we can. He left his email and website many times. He's no troll, if you mean someone "pretending" to be a believer in homeopathy. No, he is a real homeopath and he doesn't intend disruption, but intends to make Misplaced Pages stop including content that demeans homeopathy. That ends up being disruptive because it violates our policies in several ways. He has a website and presence on the internet as a homeopath, and he linkspammed it many times, which is what got him one of his first blocks. IOW, he's not faking it. He doesn't understand Misplaced Pages and doesn't seem capable of doing so, as it's been explained to him many times. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well as long as all sides in a dispute are fairly represented in the article then it is totally appropriate and necessary that content be included that expresses negative views of homeopathy. If he is a "professional" homeopath as he claims he should not be making such irresponsible claims as no professional homeopathic association would allow. I do not believe he is real just because he has a website but it does not matter. He has used deception as well in claiming not to be the user he clearly is, so why should I believe anything he says? Anyhow he is a disruption and I think we are all in agreement on that. —Whig (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. He is a disgrace to homeopathy in much the same way (yet totally different...) that SA and QG are a disgrace to skepticism, if you get my point. All of them have behavioral issues. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, without wanting to criticize individuals with whom I've had interactions in the past, I would certainly agree that true skepticism requires a certain amount of open mindedness. —Whig (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Whig if you would like to enable email for a few hours or just contact me by email (my homepage is linked from my user page), I can give you further information that I don't want to appear on-wiki. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail, look forward to hearing from you. —Whig (talk) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

information storage

"Does succussion cause cavitation cavity quantum electrodynamic information storage as bound photons?" <-- what do you mean by "cavity" in this context? How long would this "information storage" be expected to last? Just what information would be stored?
ps: blast from the past...I was just reading that you "obviously have no intention of contributing constructively here". Thanks for making the point about succussion, it is an aspect of homeopathy I never understood previously. I think it is great that you can bring a perspective to Misplaced Pages that allows clueless folks like me to learn about homeopathy. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your blast from the past, it seems to expose the name of a vanished user by the way.

In cavitation nanobubbles form in which photons may be trapped. EM information is bound by cavitation during preparation of the remedy (cQED), and remains entangled in the medium upon cavity collapse. Coherence may then be restored by microtubules or some other structure. There is no reason to expect information to be lost in nature, it appears that information is always conserved. That being said decoherence can make information unobtainable. —Whig (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Mr. "Vanished user" had a special interest in you. Anyhow, exactly what type of information do you think could be restored by microtubules? How would the body make use of such information to regulate physiological processes? --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vanished user and I had an extensive relationship which I won't discuss now, much of it is probably still possible to find in the histories but some elements have been removed which may make it hard to figure out what went on completely.

Microtubules may restore coherence which means that the detection of photon information may be possible, it is in effect a cavity domain which allows the information which was "written" to be "read" as in cQED-based quantum computation. I am not going to make a strong case for microtubules as the particular structure but I believe Stuart Hameroff has made some investigation of their properties. It isn't really that strange we would have structures to detect photons, that's how all of our sensory organs work. As for how the body would make use of this information, it would react as to anything, this amounting to a reaction against a remedy that is like the symptoms being addressed. —Whig (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My knowledge of homeopathic remedies is VERY limited, but I've been looking into why Dana Ulman was banned from Misplaced Pages and I looked into one of his books where aconite was the first remedy discussed (in an alphabetical list). I was amused to find that mention of homeopathic aconite had been removed from Aconitum napellus with the comment "homeopathic use is not" documented. In my investigation of ScienceApologist's claim, it did not take me long to find Aconite: a case study in doctrinal conflict and the meaning of scientific medicine and other sources (example) that document the medical use of homeopathic aconite. In any case, it is the one homeopathic remedy I have read about, so I want to use it as an example. Specifically, Dana Ulman's book says that homeopathic aconite is used to treat infections when there are symptoms like "the beginning of a high fever". Would you say that the information carried by the photons would produce the same physiological effects as elevated body temperature? For example, the temperature sensitive neurons of the hypothalamus would be activated by homeopathic aconite? If so, that seems like a prediction that could be tested experimentally. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't actually read Dana's book nor have I used or given Aconite, but it is absolutely possible to experimentally test the effects of homeopathic medicine by proving it on yourself even if you have no diseased state. I recommend doing so, in fact.

It is not possible to predict the physical symptoms that a particular person will exhibit in response to a remedy, as a given remedy may produce a very wide range of symptoms depending on individual sensitivity.

Having said that it may be possible to induce an effect which is a signature of a remedy and demonstrate a statistical probability of that occurring in people given it in a proving study. —Whig (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

"depending on individual sensitivity" <-- is this individual sensitivity something that is constant through time? If a test subject had increased body temperature after a dose of homeopathic aconite would they reproducibly do so? Or is "sensitivity" something that changes in an individual over time? --JWSchmidt (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can reliably expect to produce a specific symptom in a specific person by giving a homeopathic medicine to which that person may have insensitivity or some other reaction, but I don't know if research has been done to establish this. It would probably be malpractice to do so at least because you are likely to produce a lot of other symptoms to which that person is more susceptible in the course of trying to produce one specific symptom. —Whig (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I think I misunderstood your question. No, sensitivity does change over time, and taking a second dose of the same medicine does not necessarily produce the same effect, as your body has already responded to it once. I believe that it is generally the case that if you don't vary the potency, taking additional doses will eventually have no effect.

Think of it like ringing a doorbell. You can keep ringing the doorbell but eventually it gets ignored. —Whig (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Comments

You may want to read and add your comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Homeopathy_2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.59.100 (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC) (sock of User:Dr.Jhingaadey -- Brangifer (talk) 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

FYI

You are being discussed here. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Not anymore. Hans wanted to discuss you, but I have archived it. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Very disappointing. —Whig (talk) 16:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

AN thread started on User:Dr.Jhingaadey

A thread has been started to discuss this whole matter:

• Appropriateness of allowing multiple banned sockmaster Dr.Jhingaadey to return

If you have any interest in the matter, you are welcome to participate. The wider the community input, the better. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)