It is being shown that memory itself is holographic and nonlocal. If true, it would stand to reason that it would stay wherever it was placed by whatever means was used to place it there...but since it's nonlocal, could be accessed from anywhere... placing memory only tells you where you left "your" doorway to it, not where it is. The doorway could be descibed as 'intent'...as in, "This is where I'm going to look for what is all around me" So, it's not just the water that holds intent and memory no matter where you think you put it, it's the entire omniverse. But in the onmiverse, there is no discrimination as to access. If you truely believe it's lost...it is...to you, because your true intent is to 'not' find it. A person who is fully aware of their true intent would be known as a Avatar or the equivalent.
A great deal of misery in this world results from people thinking that what they believe isn't valid unless everyone else believes it and trying to force others into to confirming their reality to themselves. In a sense, science serves the role of an authority in charge of uniformity of belief, yet, the further it looks into reality, the more strange and non uniform it looks...if that's the true intent of the science being done. Otherwise, it just places walls of impossibility around perception. Perception is both projective and receptive. [and loaded with bootstraps and catch 22s] That's OK as long as nobody tries to burn anyone at the stake for looking past the walls. Most people believe they can burn. "Natural laws" are what we agree upon as being true, thus tend to confirm to each other and define that as sanity and the 'rules of our very existance'. Natural laws define a context for a definition of what shared reality is but don't define what it really is. [Brains aren't equipped to go beyond the context of thier existance..ie: You can't think in those terms and stay around if you succeed as long as you believe that brains think and that's where you and your memories exist.] Those who dare to look find that even rocks are not set in stone. But discovering 'that' places the very definition of 'self' into question. How would you like to be the scientist that proves he doesn't exist, simply because the definition of existance he used as a benchmark is too limited to hold the reality of it. What if he proved to YOU that you don't exist as well? Scary, huh? Don't look there! Challenging authority always changes your reality and threatens the shared one with change. Prepare to die..if you believe you can. Here's the rub. If you're looking for confirmation from others, everything appears to work the way they and you think it does. If not looking for confirmation...nothing does. Who dares to doubt their own self validating reality? Proof is defined as the point at which inquiry stops. Gods only power is the ability to fool oneself and believe it. Who here does not use it? C'mon now..tell the truth, you lie to yourself all the time, right? No? So, you actually BELIEVE you? ["Why yes! Undeniably!", She denied. ] ..and if you are to believe you, your mind cannot change? [But does anyway...usually unnoticed, *another neat trick*] Don't you think you are wrong? [Of course not!] Just who do you think you ARE!? [The one who isn't wrong] You must believe something exists before its existance can be denied. [Ode Coyote] Consider this. Water structuring is not real, but then, neither is the reality it doesn't exist in. Public opinion makes the world go round...it was flat once upon a time , you know. [I wonder how many people actually fell off before it changed?] LOL I sometimes wonder if the near universal symbology of reflection and it's relationship to silver has something to do with its effectiveness. Ode At 08:06 AM 8/10/2003 -0700, you wrote: > >Greetings to all members, > > The Universe watches and waits. Those who conform to Natural Laws, seeking holistic truths, are the Universe's proteges. > > > > Why Water "Clumping" Does Not >Support Homeopathic Theory > Stephen Barrett, M.D. > > On November 7, 2001, with the teaser, "homeopathy isn't all hokum," New Scientist magazine's Web site published an article that began: > >It is a chance discovery so unexpected it defies belief and threatens to reignite debate about whether there is a scientific basis for thinking homeopathic medicines really work....... > >http://lewfh.tripod.com/bioresonanthomeostasisandwellbeing/ > > >The article to which this referred was published in Chemical Communications, the journal of the Royal Society of Chemistry [2]. Since the article does not mention homeopathy, I asked one of its authors (Kurt E. Geckeler, M.D., Ph.D.) whether the study implied anything about it. He replied: > >As you stated correctly, the word homeopathy is not mentioned in the original paper and the study itself has nothing to do with it. It only states that on dilution (up to mM conc.) of a number of substances in water, an increase of particle size was observed. It was a laboratory study -- everything beyond that is speculation at this point. What journalists make out of our publication is beyond our control. Nevertheless, if confirmed, it might have implications in many different areas [3]. > > Homeopathic products are prepared by repeatedly diluting the original substance so that the each dilution is 1/10th or 1/100th as concentrated as the previous one. The clumping of molecules simply means that instead of each dilution taking a random sample of the molecules in a solution, it might take more-- or less -- than would be expected with an even distribution. (In other words, if molecules of a substance clumps in one place, there will be fewer molecules in other places.) With repeated dilution, the ultimate number of "active ingredient" molecules would approach zero whether clumping occurs or not. Clumping would not increase the number of molecules as the "active ingredient" is repeatedly diluted, so the remedy cannot grow stronger as the solution becomes more dilute. > > Nor does Dr. Geckeler's experiment support homeopathy's absurd notion that water can "remember" molecules that are no longer there. > >References > >Coghlin A. Bizarre chemical discovery gives homeopathic hint. New Scientist, Nov 10, 2001, pp 4-5. > >Samal A, Geckeler KE. Unexpected solute aggregation in water on dilution. Chemical Communications 2224-2225, 2001. > >E-mail message from Dr. Geckler to Dr. Barrett, November 12, 2001. > > > *********************** > > > > Thanks for the memory > Experiments have backed what was once a scientific 'heresy', says Lionel Milgrom > >Lionel Milgrom >Guardian > >Thursday March 15, 2001 > > >About homeopathy, Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queen's University Belfast is, like most scientists, deeply sceptical. That a medicinal compound diluted out of existence should still exert a therapeutic effect is an affront to conventional biochemistry and pharmacology, based as they are on direct and palpable molecular events. The same goes for a possible explanation of how homoeopathy works: that water somehow retains a "memory" of things once dissolved in it. > >This last notion, famously promoted by French biologist Dr Jacques Benveniste, cost him his laboratories, his funding, and ultimately his international scientific credibility. However, it did not deter Professor Ennis who, being a scientist, was not afraid to try to prove Benveniste wrong. So, more than a decade after Benveniste's excommunication from the scientific mainstream, she jumped at the chance to join a large pan-European research team, hoping finally to lay the Benveniste "heresy" to rest. But she was in for a shock: for the team's latest results controversially now suggest that Benveniste might have been right all along. > >Back in 1985, Benveniste began experimenting with human white blood cells involved in allergic reactions, called basophils. These possess tiny granules containing substances such as histamine, partly responsible for the allergic response. The granules can be stained with a special dye, but they can be decolourised (degranulated) by a substance called anti-immunoglobulin E or aIgE. That much is standard science. What Benveniste claimed so controversially was that he continued to observe basophil degranulation even when the aIgE had been diluted out of existence, but only as long as each dilution step, as with the preparation of homoeopathic remedies, was accompanied by strong agitation. > >After many experiments, in 1988 Benveniste managed to get an account of his work published in Nature, speculating that the water used in the experiments must have retained a "memory" of the original dissolved aIgE. Homoeopaths rejoiced, convinced that here at last was the hard evidence they needed to make homoeopathy scientifically respectable. Celebration was short-lived. Spearheaded by a Nature team that famously included a magician (who could find no fault with Benveniste's methods - only his results), Benveniste was pilloried by the scientific establishment. > >A British attempt (by scientists at London's University College, published in Nature in 1993) to reproduce Benveniste's findings failed. Benveniste has been striving ever since to get other independent laboratories to repeat his work, claiming that negative findings like those of the British team were the result of misunderstandings of his experimental protocols. Enter Professor Ennis and the pan-European research effort. > >A consortium of four independent research laboratories in France, Italy, Belgium, and Holland, led by Professor M Roberfroid at Belgium's Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels, used a refinement of Benveniste's original experiment that examined another aspect of basophil activation. The team knew that activation of basophil degranulation by aIgE leads to powerful mediators being released, including large amounts of histamine, which sets up a negative feedback cycle that curbs its own release. So the experiment the pan-European team planned involved comparing inhibition of basophil aIgE-induced degranulation with "ghost" dilutions of histamine against control solutions of pure water. > >In order to make sure no bias was introduced into the experiment by the scientists from the four laboratories involved, they were all "blinded" to the contents of their test solutions. In other words, they did not know whether the solutions they were adding to the basophil-aIgE reaction contained ghost amounts of histamine or just pure water. But that's not all. The ghost histamine solutions and the controls were prepared in three different laboratories that had nothing further to do with the trial. > >The whole experiment was coordinated by an independent researcher who coded all the solutions and collated the data, but was not involved in any of the testing or analysis of the data from the experiment. Not much room, therefore, for fraud or wishful thinking. So the results when they came were a complete surprise. > >Three of the four labs involved in the trial reported a statistically significant inhibition of the basophil degranulation reaction by the ghost histamine solutions compared with the controls. The fourth lab gave a result that was almost significant, so the total result over all four labs was positive for the ghost histamine solutions. > >Still, Professor Ennis was not satisfied. "In this particular trial, we stained the basophils with a dye and then hand-counted those left coloured after the histamine- inhibition reaction. You could argue that human error might enter at this stage." So she used a previously developed counting protocol that could be entirely automated. This involved tagging activated basophils with a monoclonal antibody that could be observed via fluorescence and measured by machine. > >The result, shortly to be published in Inflammation Research, was the same: histamine solutions, both at pharmacological concentrations and diluted out of existence, lead to statistically significant inhibition of basophile activation by aIgE, confirming previous work in this area. > >"Despite my reservations against the science of homoeopathy," says Ennis, "the results compel me to suspend my disbelief and to start searching for a rational explanation for our findings." She is at pains to point out that the pan-European team have not reproduced Benveniste's findings nor attempted to do so. > >Jacques Benveniste is unimpressed. "They've arrived at precisely where we started 12 years ago!" he says. Benveniste believes he already knows what constitutes the water-memory effect and claims to be able to record and transmit the "signals" of biochemical substances around the world via the internet. These, he claims, cause changes in biological tissues as if the substance was actually present. > >The consequences for science if Benveniste and Ennis are right could be earth shattering, requiring a complete re-evaluation of how we understand the workings of chemistry, biochemistry, and pharmacology. > >One thing however seems certain. Either Benveniste will now be brought in from the cold, or Professor Ennis and the rest of the scientists involved in the pan-European experiment could be joining him there. > >Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003 > > >With regards > Lew > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >--------- Original Message --------- > >DATE: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:52:14 >From: "Lew FH" <[email protected]> >To: [email protected] >Cc: > >> Thanks jr, for this down-to-earth demonstration of the responding waves from the Universe's spherical resonances. >> >> [ Stefanatos ( 1997 , 228 ) tells us that the " electromagnetic fields (EMF) emanating from bacteria,viruses and toxic substances affect the cells of the body and weaken its constitution. " So vital force is identified quite explicitly >>with electromagnetic fields and said to be the cause of disease. But somehow the life energies of the body are balanced by bioenergetic therapies. >> " No antibiotic or drug, no matter how powerful, will save an animal or human being if the vital force of healing is suppressed or lacking" ( Stefanatos >>1997,229 ). So health or sickness is determined by who wins the battle between Good and Bad electromagnetic waves in the body." ] >> >> Oxygen is magnetic. >> >>With regards >> Lew >> >>--------- Original Message --------- >> >>DATE: Sat, 09 Aug 2003 18:30:41 >>From: [email protected] >>To: [email protected] >>Cc: >> >>>http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/m61880.html >>> >>>Whatever it was didn't come through, BUT these photos >>>were found at the site: >>>"...I was very curious about if the hydrogen peroxide >>>really does make the particles smaller, so I asked >>>my brother Brian who works for a water reclamation >>>plant if they would have a way for me to see what >>>the CS looks like before and after adding the >>>peroxide... >>>The picture on the left is CS without >>>Hydrogen Peroxide...On the right is with the (H2O2)": >>>http://www.msrebel.com/colloidal_silver_ms_treatment.htm >>>jr >>> >>> >>>-- >>>The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. >>> >>>Instructions for unsubscribing may be found at: http://silverlist.org >>> >>>To post, address your message to: [email protected] >>> >>>Silver-list archive: http://escribe.com/health/thesilverlist/index.html >>> >>>List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail! >>http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005 >> >> > > > >____________________________________________________________ >Get advanced SPAM filtering on Webmail or POP Mail ... Get Lycos Mail! >http://login.mail.lycos.com/r/referral?aid=27005 > >
