Why I Got the Yves Lasne Prize for Homeopathy

Why I Got the Yves Lasne Prix for Homeopathy



Particle Finite vs. the Physic of the Infinitesimal


ON THE DAY OF THE DEAD, November 2nd, 1999, 17 years ago to the day, I was in Tucson to discuss previously unknown tests for the solute in homeopathic diluents with Prof. Gary Schwartz at the Human Energy Systems Laboratory for the examination of unexplained human oriented phenomena, what is commonly regarded as the paranormal.
Prior to the meeting I wandered around a quiet neighborhood in the university district, to kill time, when a big black pickup pulled up next to me. The window rolls down and the driver leans out, butch looking guy in a white T shirt. He hooks a muscular left arm out the window and points from the hip upward to the sky and says, “Look at the Sun . . ”
It looked like it had split into three parts, two four pointed stars shone as smaller suns on either side of the usual sol. The array appeared to be connected by an encircling ring, giving it the appearance of a huge eye microscoping us
“You ever see anything like that?” he said.
“No. Have you?” I said.
“What is it?”
“I don’t know. Maybe it’s the eye if God,” he said and drove away.


In a world growing in artificial intelligence, augmented consciousness, robots and drones, organic needs will multiply. The desire for organic interaction between real human beings intensifies, the ability to recognize the human soul sharpens, and a tried and true, quantum human chemistry emerges.

For over 200 years, as best defined by Pauling and applied by Hahnemann, as enigmatic and cryptic as it may seem to be, quantum chemistry has cured epidemic and pandemic, smallpox and diphtheria horse hoof and gout; heavy metal poisoning, soldier’s heart to PTSD; milk leg and

Quantum chemist Linus Pauling, only man to win two Nobel prizes 100% . .

Quantum chemist Linus Pauling, only man to win two Nobel prizes 100% . .

housemaid’s knee to phlegmasia alba dolens and bursitis; blood poisoning, cancer, diabetes, Ebola . . every ailment conceivable by every shape of man, beast and plant the broad breaths of the world can furnish and has suggested a cure in every one.

In medicine the application of quantum chemistry is called homeopathy.

The quantum chemical definition of the homeopathic dilution is hydrolyte (Benneth > thefreedictionary. A hydrolyte is a product of hydrolysis, the reaction of water with another chemical compound to form two or more products, involving ionization by protonation from the water molecule. In homeopathic serial dilutions hydrolysis infinitely splits the guest solute into hydrolytes. In these dilutions the intended molecular content is completely ionized by the seventh decimal dilution (7X), negating Avogadro < when applied as a molar reduction limit rather than as a predictor of the electron pressure constant. The phase shift electronically structures the hydrogen bonded crystalline solvent as found

Plasma discharge from supramolecular homeopathic solution

Plasma discharge from supramolecular homeopathic solution.


in clathrates by grabbing solvent H gas under exogeneous pressure, such as from the mild perturbations of the background radiation (Schumann Resonances) or nanoscale fission induced by succussion, converting it to H plasma, structured as the solute.
Dissociation of sub atomic particles causes increases coherence of the solute signal due to quantum entanglement.


I’ve lost count how many times trolls have demanded, if I had truly found a test to identify homeopathic dilutes from pure water and can explain how, then why is it I haven’t won a Nobel prize for it?

Dissociation Constant

Dissociation Constant

I think I understand now what Bob Dylan is going thru. I got an even greater prize, in capitalized science, potentially worth more than the Nobel, nor as onerous, or blinded by politics of corporate interests.

They said Dylan was arrogant, as if he is now under some obligation to the Merchant of Death’s legacy to return a phone call.
There are some painful problems with it. Homeopaths have always had a disdain for the Nobel prize ever since the first recipient of it for Medicine was told to shut up about homeopathy. Emil von Behring (1805) had to be warned not to say anything about his diptheria antitoxin being inspired by homeopathy, or he would not receive the Nobel prize for it . . https://drnancymalik.wordpress.com/2012/06/05/nobel-prize-winners-on-homeopathy/ that it was based on the precipice of homeopathy’s main gate, similitude, you cure a disease by giving the semblance of one similar to it.
The original vaccine, the cowpox toxin, is a perfect example, in fact, after seeing it eradicate smallpox in village after village, Hahnemann knew he was on the right track with similitude. It is no mere coincidence that he stopped a bullet in a 1796 edition of Hufeland’s Journal by using the word homeopatie for the first time, the same year that Edward Jenner rolled out the Vaccine. But now both sides of the argument refuse to recognize this quantum chemical fact, that the vaccine works because it is homeopathic. Yet it appears to be a mass delusion that homeopathy is not behind Man’s greatest medical achievement.
If you want to stop a fight between a homeopath and a scientist, just say the smallpox vaccine is homeopathic . . and, in the name of common hubris, they will suddenly stop fighting, join forces and turn on you.
So the Nobel prize is like a death sentence . . death by hubris. Loss of hope.
If I was Bob Dylan I wouldn’t accept it either.
Like Pauling, Hahnemann was a Master Chemist, but unlike Pauling, Hahnemann worked without a net. Anyone can see the evidence for homeopathy in the recipe, but some have to think they know how it works.
I live down the street from where Linus Pauling is buried. He is the only man to win the Nobel prize twice, 100%, the first time he won it was for quantum chemistry (1954) and he did it before he finished high school, Washington High School in Portland, Oregon. He said that it was due to the electro dynamic effect of water’s hydrogen bond structuring that alcohol had it’s narcotic effect, proof that the effects of the solute are solely due to the hydrolytic potential of water, yet he never uttered a word of this being proof for the action of hydrolytes homeopathically, obviously terrified they’d never give him another Nobel if he did. If Linus shot his mouth off about the quantum chemistry of homeopathy, not only would he not be in line for another Nobel prize, they’d ask for the first one back . . and he’d flunk high school, too.
That’s how contentious the topic of homeopathy is. Except to condemn, defame or ridicule it, if you talk about homeopathy, no Nobel prize for you.
No other chemist has contributed more to quantum chemistry than Linus Pauling, yet even he was not exempt from the pharma injunction against associating it with homeopathy . . yet wasn’t it he that said that the electronic structure of molecules and crystals deternines their chemical properties, and that it is the liquid crystalline structure of water around a solute that imparts its biological effects? And isn’t it true that by hydrolytic dissociation the solute particle will split indefinitely and by self assembly of water molecules, populate virgin diluent 100%?
Simple tests of dielectric stress, permitivity and molar conductance prove it, but most investigators want nothing to do with them . . amongst others such as NMR, TEM, optical density, beta scintillation and plasma discharge.
Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier complained of “intellectual terrorism” and as liberal and pionering as it had been, was run out of France after he replicated provings of homeopathy by Jacques Benveniste, the director of the French National Institute of Health and Medical Research, whose career was destroyed after he replicated Poitevin, a seminal biochemical assay of a homeopathically diluted histamine . . and when he heretically got the results published in Nature, the world’s leading science journal, those who made their piece by pretending to debunk it, were enraged by it, setting “science” on fire.
So here you can see that the greatest prize for genius is not available for a chemical explanation of this mysterious subject. The fallout from all this excruciatingly painful obloquy and punishment for validating an unexplained fact is that anyone who seeks to validate homeopathy is subjected to lynching by the science community with the admonition to y’all . . stay away . .
That is, until now.
Homeopathy now has its own Nobel prize.
The prize I got 17 years after the eye of God looked down on me was the Yves Lasne for fundamental research in homeopathy. I’d like to think it is for finally explaining the quantum chemistry of homeopathy in conventional ionic theory, how homeopathy works in conventional terms.
So it is no happenstance coincidence in my superstitious mind that the same chemistry that drives homeopathy also describes sun dogs, what Manly Hall calls a rare Day of Three Suns, “parhelia” . . the huge clathrate eye over Schwartz’s paranormal testing lab, staring down at me 17 years ago, marking out my mission: Raise $5 million dollars to explain the “mechanism”, describe in known chemical processes the physico-chemistry of homeopathy, say how and why it works in conventional terms referenced and hyperlinked online in an e-book about it entitled Physic of the Infinitesimal, with Applications in Medicine, Agriculture and Industry.

I WAS flown to Paris, First Class, put up in a six star hotel on the Champs Elysees, fed French food morning noon and night by one of the great chefs of Europe, watched PPTs by Saurav Arola and Gabriel Vernot, gave a little talk, ceremoniously made first recipient of the prize, given a tour of Paris, a dose of culture shock and sent back home the same way I came, but with new mission, hope and enthusiasm.

SHOUT OUT to Ry Cooder, Uri Geller, Richard L. Adams, Jr., George Noory, Sandra Courtney, Jana Shiloh, Dana Ullman, Georg Andras, Gabruel Vernot, Sandeep Laila, MD., Brian Josephson



Avogadro’s Constant hypothesis predicts electron pressure and the asymptote at infinite dilution.

Avogadro’s limit doesn’t apply to absence of solute in homeopathic remedies because of electron pressure enthalpy, a measure of energy in a thermodynamic system. its native heat, from the Schumann resonances, the background geomagnetic field, discovered first by Tesla, later by Schumann mid-twentieth century. Ionization of the solvent by dissociation of the solute molecule has been confirmed in the ultra-dilute remedy.

The solute in a dilute homeopathic remedy is not molecular because of de-ionization into electrons, . There are measures within analytic chemistry which prove it, such as conductance tests and transmission electron microscopy  (TEM).

All of the extreme controversy over whether or not the homeopathic remedy is placebo or verum, whether or not these materials are medically effective, and all of these phony money offers to “prove homeopathy”, conveniently avoid this simple, demonstrable fact, a fact that separates homeopathy from fiction: the solute in highly diluted solutions used as homeopathic drugs is ionized and can be physically detected by conventional chemical analysis.

Students and professors of electrochemistry should be well aware of this elementary principle of molecular dissociation, that as the solute presumably decreases, thins out and changes phase fron condensed to plasma, its conductivity increases to an asymptote and evidence of the solute persists in the solvent despite an apparent infinite number of dilutions.

Why or how the solute persists in infinite dilution is not clear, but strange as it may seem to the zenophobic, it does so, no matter how dilute it is in serial dilutions.

According to Copeland, the solute is not completely deionized until the sixth decimal dilution, at which point the aqueous solvent has completely dissociated the molecular structure of the solute by means of hydrolysis.

There are tests of molar conductance that demonstrate this.

The Chemistry of Homeopathy under the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

On April 20-21, 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held a public hearing at its White Oak Campus to obtain information and comments from stakeholders about the current use of human drug and biological products labeled as homeopathic, as well as the Agency’s regulatory framework for such products. These products include prescription drugs and biological products labeled as homeopathic and over-the-counter (OTC) drugs labeled as homeopathic. FDA is still seeking written comments from all interested parties, including, but not limited to, consumers, patients, caregivers, health care professionals, patient groups, and industry. FDA is seeking input on a number of specific questions, but is interested in any other pertinent information participants would like to share. Please refer to the following documents for more information:
Federal Register Notice
Submit Comments to the Public Docket



As dry as this may seem at first, this is really a fascinating topic, and very psimon3 2010_05_01_16_12_21 001wet. A few months ago The Washington Post reported that by analyzing edit changes made by citizen contributors of articles in the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, they were able to determine that the two most contentious topics in the Western world are Jesus Christ and homeopathy.


Now you might not be surprised to hear that Jesus is still stirring up trouble, but without further erudition . . unless you’ve been in or close to the pot being stirred . . you might be a bit perplexed when told something as innocuous as “homeopathy” is rivaling Christ for the bad boy of the Western world distinction; but I would venture to say that if you  go further East I reckon homeopathy is also kicking Muhammed and Buddha in the skirts for the same title; and get this, it should be even even more perplexing to hear that both doctrines of Christ and homeopathy share atheists as their primary detractors!

“What’s this you say?”

Yes, it pains me to say it, but it’s true. Both Jesus and homeopathy are healers and both kickoveer money tables. The mere mention of the word “homeopathy” can send a malinformed atheist into a fit of glossolalia and make him dance like St. Vitus. There are innumerable high profile atheists, like Richard Dawkins and James Randi, who, when they’re not ridiculing a belief in the Deity and knocking the noses off of marbled saints, are tearing up the well manicured lawn in front of the great doctrine of Hahnemann House, crying a liturgy of shameless pseudoscience, so much so that homeopathy is something of a pariah in the Western mainstream media so slavishly chained to academic science and big money patent medicine . .  which in the case of homeopathy is now itself mouthing pseudoscience!

Now just to make this volte face clear, I’m not accusing homeopathy of being pseudoscience, no! I’m accusing skepticism of it! I’m here in this article doing something that’s never been done before in modern times, and certainly never done to this extent ever heretofore: I’m making the first installment of a presentation where I introduce the chemical principle of what has been thought to be a scientific impossibility, and that my friends is the chemistry of what most material scientists have insisted was a placebo, hoax and fraud, where every man jack of them is a patholgical atheist!

It’s true! And please don’t get me wrong or take me as poe. At times I have found a grudging respect for atheists. I am even inclined to believe they are amongst God’s favorites; they may not be speaking to him, but at least they’re not speaking for him as so many believers do.  But they don’t show this grace for homeopathy, nor in reality do they show it for science, and yes I know, I know, I’ve just thrown more boiling water on the storm troopers by saying that.

I am noting this to reveal an exposition of a pathology that stands in the way of accepting a known chemical principle. Be it because of pride or lacking a gear for reverse travel, they say and will continue to say, as they have said before, incorrectly, that there is no known chemistry to explain the action of the highly aqueous diluted materials used as medicine in the practice of homeopathy . .


. . and so they will still say,  even though it can now be explained to them with a chemical principal to the contrary, that because there’s not one MOLECULE in it of anything but plain water, the homeopathic solution cannot have any specific medical action of its own; therefore homeopathy is without reason and there can be no acceptable evidence for it; all evidence then for the fraud is dismissed!

That is what they say, the rampaging patent medicine engine cheers them on, and they are wrong. There is a widely known chemical principle that supports homeopathy and there are now widely known properties within classical chemistry that prove the action of these drugs. That neither homeopath nor skeptic is aware of the classical chemistry of homeopathy suggests that, as a gesture of compromise with other more insidious reasons, that, lacking finite limitations, the basic underlying chemical principle is sensed by the human mind and rejected . . and this is a premier example of a scientific cognitive dissonance. Both principle and property have been gathering dust in science, and the link between homeopathy and chemistry, once known, has up until now apparently been forgotten, ignored or expelled from classical science for over 100 years. Like a brazen Frankenstein I stand before the torchlit mob and shout “It lives!”

In other words, there is a classical chemistry to explain the potency of what former scientists have been screaming are inert placebos, incapable of intrinsically delivering the effects of their label. Furthermore, and in terms of the FDA, this next piece of information ought to bring everyone still sitting to their feet and the hearing to a halt: The chemistry of homeopathy was first presented by the progenitor of the modern FDA, the chief sponsor of the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA)!


It should come as a great surprise . . if not shock and disbelief . . to proponent and opponent alike to learn — contrary to common belief and what is taught by putative skeptics, and medical and “homeopathy” schools alike — there is recognition within standard, classical chemistry, that with materials ionized by molecular dissociation in aqueous solutions, the properties of the solute are fixed and remain constantly in “infinite dilution”!

Furthermore, to the even greater distress of homeopath and skeptic alike, at least those who want to continue the obfuscation of supramolecular chemistry [the study of electric properties beyond the molecule] with homeopathy, associating the “homeopathic remedy” with the chemistry of molecular dissociation was done 106 years ago by none other than the medical doctor and professor of academic medicine who became a US Senator and the chief sponsor of FDA denture, the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), the man who gave the FDA its teeth, Senator Royal S. Copeland A.M., M.D.


Senator Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D.

In a 1909 article entitled “The Scientific Reasonableness of Homeopathy” by Royal S. Copeland, A.M., M.D.  he states:

“. . a chemical, technically an electrolyte, when dissolved, is dissociated into parts or particles smaller than the atoms and known as ions. The more dilute the solution the greater is the dissociation and consequently the atoms are less in number and the ions increased. In a solution infinitely dilute, the dissociation is absolute and the chemical is present only in a state of ionization.”

Read the whole article.   http://www.homeowatch.org/history/copeland.html

Although Copeland goes on to persuade using testimony from Kelvin and other authorities (while most homeopaths will remain paralyzed and silent) Copeland’s article will be dismissed in horror by skeptics, who will use its age and the fact that the author was a homeopath, as excuses for further obloquy of “homeopathy.”
There does indeed seem to be some confusion as to what exactly constitutes an ion, a confusion that persists to this day; but despite cries wishing for the contrary, modern classical chemistry still supports Copeland’s thesis, that the properties of ionized solutes remain constant throughout “infinite dilution.”
Running a search on Google for the number of appearances of “infinite dilution” returns an unbelievable 229,000 hits (search made on June 7th, 2015), and among these, numerous articles that support the principle of an asymptote solute in infinite dilution. Asymptote means approaching but never reaching zero, i.e., due to particle splitting of a solute in aqueous suspension, the concentration of solute ions will approach but never reach zero, no matter how many dilutions are made!

How is it then that skeptical opinion by professional organizations, engaging the media against homeopathy, can deny what is an orthodox explanation of FDA labeled “homeopathic” pharmaceuticals by modern classical claassical chemistry? They will volley to the end that a belief in homeopathy is delusional, when in fact the scientific principal of the properties of solutes remaining in infinite dilution is a well established fact, to be found online in the literature.

“It may sound like something out of a science fiction movie, but infinite dilution is a concept found in chemistry that is applied to the study of solvents — liquids — and solutes, the substances that are dissolved in solvents. This principle is used to test the properties of solutions and extrapolate or estimate their chemical reactions in varying environments.”
Read more : http://www.ehow.com/about_5459313_definition-infinite-dilution.html

What is infinite dilution – Answers.com
“Infinite dilution means such a large dilution so that when you add more solvent there is no change in concentration.”
http://www.answers.com › Wiki Answers › Categories › Science › Chemistry

“An infinitely dilute solution is one where there is a sufficiently large excess of water that adding any more does not cause any further heat to be absorbed or evolved. … The hydration enthalpy is the enthalpy change when 1 mole of gaseous ions dissolve in sufficient water to give an infinitely dilute solution. Hydration enthalpies are always negative.”

“The law is based on the fact that only a portion of the electrolyte is dissociated into ions at ordinary dilution and completely at infinite dilution.”  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_dilution

PDF: Theory of infinite dilution chemical potential

University of Illinois at Chicago

Fluid Phase Equilibria, 85 (1993) 141-151. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam. 141. Theory of infinite dilution chemical potential. http://www.uic.edu/labs/trl/HamadInfiniteDilution.pdf 

A search in PUBMED for articles containing “infinite dilution” brought up a dizzying 620 abstracts.



This one mere fact, expressed as two words: INFINITE DILUTION, exposes this whole cat and mouse game of gotcha antagonism against the practice of homeopathy to be nothing more than ignorant pseudoscience. This is a monumental discovery. Anybody can look it up online and see it for themselves in a plethora of articles on the subject.
If infinite dilution is not a chemical fact that refers to the properties of the solute remaining in the solvent after unlimited serial dilutions, then perhaps one of these self-appointed celebrity spokesmen for science, such as Richard Dawkins, Penn Jillette or James “the Amazing” Randi et al; or caviling professors such as PZ Myers, Edzard Ernst, Joe Schwarc, David Colquhoun or Steven Novella et al can explain to us, in their own pseudoscientific terms, just what it really means.


Why have homeopathic physicians and manufacturers of homeopathic medicine not seized upon this acknowledged principle as an answer to critics who insist homeopathic medicines contain “nothing in them but plain water”? Why isn’t the burgeoning homeopathy industry insisting that homeopathic remedies be redesignated ionized pharmaceuticals?

The mystery of why standard chemistry’s concept of infinite dilution is not applied to the dilution dilemma of homeopathic medicine might at first seem as perplexing as infinite dilution itself. But dwell on it here a little longer and deeper truths emerge.


Due to the momentum gained by an incorrect interpretation of “Avogadros limit,” it will continue to be stated by skeptics, posing as rationalists, that by a process of reduction by dilution, the number of molecules of a solute will be reduced past the asymptote to zero by the 23rd decimal dilution, and this is presented as proof that homeopathic remedies contain none of the ingredient stated on a product labeled “homeopathic” and are therefore fraudulent. But there’s a reason why I italicize the word molecule in the context of Avogadro because this is where skeptic theory for homeopathic remedies having nothing of their labeled materials in them literally falls apart.

First, let’s examine what Avogadros constant, limit or number. Avogadro’s hypothesis as proof of an empty bottle . . is easily rebutted. Avogadro’s number is a constant, the ratio of solute particles to the solvent. It must be for particles, such as ions, not just molecules, in a volume of gas, not water. It doesn’t factor the perpetual production of ions by dissociation.

If a constant such as Avogadro’s, Faraday’s or Henry’s were applied to infinite dilution, it might state that due to repeated expansion and contraction of the ion’s domain within the aqueous host (by enthalpy) and contraction due to dissociation, the number of total ions in solution from the time of complete ionization will remain constant within a sinusoidal range throughout all subsequent dilutions.

The FDA then should address this argument and concern by stating that products registered as “homeopathic remedies” are in reality ionized pharmaceuticals, that they are supramolecular (beyond molecular) and their active constitutuion ionic, not molecular.

Now, this assertion of ionized pharmaceutical calls for a question of assay. How are the properties of the ionized solute detected in what are currently called homeopathic drugs, or remedies? Are there tests, trials or experiments that show the presence of an ionized solute in infinite dilution?

Copeland: “. . the laboratory has proven that the properties of a completely dissociated solution are the sum of all the ions present in the solution. This holds for such properties as conductivity, lowering of the freezing point, refraction equivalent, heat of neutralization, and undoubtedly, for any therapeutic effect possessed by the drug.”

Here then Copeland gives us four physical, non-clinical tests, or assays, from 1909, for ionized pharmaceuticals, tests that promise to separate and identify verum from placebo aliquots of the inert aqueous vehicle:

  1. Conductivity
  2. Freezing point
  3. Refraction equivalent
  4. Heat of neutralization

. . and modern chemistry has given us more; transmission electron microscopy (TEM) gives us a fifth assay that detects the actual presence of ions of the starting materials. http://homeoint.ru/pdfs/Extreme%20homeopathic%20dilutions%20retain%20starting%20%20materials-A%20nanoparticulate%20perspective.pdf

If not yet convinced, any real scientist will put aside his drumroll of ignorance or preconceived notions of what the homepathic remedy is when made aware of the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) test protocol for infinite dilutions:

“Test 4: Infinite Dilution Test. This is a test for consistency in the limiting behavior of GE/(x1x2/RT) and the activity coefficients γ1 and γ2. The percent deviations in both limits are calculated: http://trc.nist.gov/TDE/Help/TDE103b/VLE-DataSets-ConsistencyTests/InfiniteDilution.htm

In lieu of this newly rediscovered chemistry for the materials used in homeopathy, the FDA should drop the term “homeopathic” and replace it with ionized or ionic as the description for these drugs.

I don’t know how it is that they can fight their way out of this paper bag. They and their secret police now stand accused of pseudoscience, the very thing they accused homeopathy of, and as funny as it is, I don’t know now how it is that they and “skepticism” can be taken seriously anymore.

John Henry Clarke, M.D.

The clinical proof has long been extant. If you really look at the semiological registers, most particularly the FDA recommended literature on the subject, (Dictionary of the Materia Medica by John Henry Clarke, M.D. http://www.homeoint.org/clarke/) you will find alternative answers to problems now being addressed almost solely by over-monetized patent medicine, and we all know, or should know, what a disaster it has been.

Death by Medicine http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf

Although I am quite aware of the denials that will follow, with the chemistry of infinite dilution now well established in numerous explanations online, it is time to bring this existing, second, more humane pharmacopoeia of inexpensive, time tested, well documented, FDA sanctioned, effective medical materials out of the shadows into the real world of real medicine. This begins with the FDA recognizing what these materials called “homeopathic remedies” really are: IONIZED PHARMACEUTICALS.


If you don’t believe that properties of the solute remain in solvents diluted beyond the putative limit . . make the assays for ionic concentration, i.e. do the tests to identify homeopathic remedies from plain water!

PUT IT TO THE TEST! (James Randi, get your wallet out)

Test question: What are the assays for ionized pharmaceuticals?


We have lost homeopathy’s greatest physicist

Rolland Conte, and the nuclear physics of homeopathy

The great French physicist and researcher of homeopathic dilutions, Rolland R. Conte, passed away July 6th, 2014. He was a noted statistician who made a major contribution to the understanding of the qualities of the materials used in homeopathic medicine.
He was the lead author of the controversial Theory of High Dilutions and Experimental Aspects  (THD). Published by Polytechnica, Paris, 1996, Paris) with co-authors Yves Lasne, Henri Berliocchi and Gabriel Vernot, THD is the most incredible book about the physics of homeopathy I have ever read. Conte was considered by some reviwers to be either an egotistical statistician or an unusual genius of physics. In Theory the authors postulated the existence of a hyperproton or “white hole,” wherein there is the absence of mass, the opposite of a black hole.
In support of Conte’s white hole theory, Professor Michael Kirkman, Director of Academic Affairs at the UKGB International Society of Homeotoxicology, writes, “It is of prime importance to evaluate scientifically what is contained in homoeopathic remedies. Due to the dilution-succussion process, the molecules are often diluted beyond existence. A residual wave develops that gives birth to ‘white holes’, ie, absence of matter, which in turn give birth to ‘hyperprotons’. The presence of hyperprotons is indicative of a reorganisation of the constituents of the diluent. They can be detected in the aqueous and biological media by measuring the negative radiation induced by the association of two hyperprotons.”
This part is pure Contonian physics.
The white hole and hyperproton theory does not necessarily conflict with current thinking that the mechanics of homeopathic solutions need cavitation of a material phase of the remedy material in its form as a gas, plasma, aether, isotope . . or perhaps . . a hyperproton of the remedy’s label, whatever your Physik may allow.
But Conte’s Theory was and is more than novel “theory.” There were also some novel results from experimentation. Led by Conte, the authors rolled up their sleeves and got their hands dirty putting the homeopathic remedy through test and trial, immersing themselves in the instrumental study of the physical properties of these mysterious materials. The fruit of their labors revealed unique dimensions of the remedy, most notably radiant qualities in the beta particle range, detected by using beta scintillation.
To my knowledge, the Lasne beta test by Conte et al has never been repeated.
There have been other types of physical tests measuring changes in the physical properties of dilutions used in homeopathy, such as dielectric strength, galvanic effects, light adsorption, Raman spectroscopy, black boxes and T1 and T2 spectra nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), but the Theory team is the only one to have used scintillators to detect beta radiation. Dr. Conte sent me pictures of where they had burned the image of an H and a P (for Hyper Proton) into x-ray film using homeopathic pellets, implying that they were, in essence, radioactive, a stunning challenge to the antagonist’s homeopathy null hypothesis, the skeptics theory that the materials used in homeopathy are inert.

But what other explanation for the super-Avogadro solvents used in homeopathic medicine other than a nuclear reaction could there be outside of a chemical reaction

In a chemical reaction  there is a change in the electron shell surrounding the atom; in a nuclear reaction it goes much deeper, the change is in the nucleus.

Take T2O, ditritium peroxide, also known as tritiated or super-heavy water, annotated long hand as 3H2O. The T in T2O stands for Tritium. Forgive me for what may seem like gratuitive emphasis, but what you are about to read is huge, irreparable crack in the caviling dike of opposition to homeopathy:  T2O is water that is organically, in the natural environment, been made radioactive by exposure to natural radiation.

T2O then is the perfect analog for the “homeopathic remedy.” The basic elements of superheavy water are the same as normal water. The difference is that within the nucleus of each of the two hydrogen atoms in T2O are two neutrons in addition to the single proton of protium (normal hydrogen). In other words, the addition to the protic nucleus of two neutrons could be construed as a single hyperproton.

If water can be made radioactive in the natural environment, why can’t it be made so artificially in succussion? In an artificial nuclear chain reaction T2O is compressed to act as a nuclear trigger to vause a plutonium core to explode. According to Roy (Structure of Liquid Water, 2007) pressures in the range of 10 kilobar are brought to bear in the creation of the diluted pharmaceuticals used in homeopathy by the process of succussion. And just like in a nuclear explosion, which vitrifies materials surrounding it into glass, so will liquid water, which has a molecular structure similar to glass,  structure molecules around  what appears to be cavitation during succussion in a process analogous to clathrates.

According to Conte, this is not a mere nano bubble of atmosphere as researchers beginning with Barnard in 1965 (Microdose Paradox) have suggested, but rather the hyperproton.

Puzzled in a review of Theory, John Lee wrote, “The Conte team have followed on from work by Moser (1987) and Demangeat (1992). The chaotic results of the T2 relaxation times using Nuclear Magnetic Resonance when subject to Conte’s mathematics reveal a phase displacement i.e. a potency maximum. Coming up with their method of measuring potency maxima was in my opinion genius. The implications of this are of great interest to homoeopaths as it suggests the possibility of remedies being standardised with a known potency maximum for each remedy.”

I first interviewed Conte in 1999, when he was in Australia organizing Medicine Quantale (MQL), a venture for the manufacture of homoeopathic remedies. Like anyone who makes a serious study of homoeopathy, Conte recognized Hahnemann as a genius of the stature of Einstein, except Hahnemann’s proto-nuclear discoveries were more than mere thought experiments, they were more than revelations such as relativity, they were collectively a medical epiphany, the prognosis of which have yet to be conventionally recognized.
At that time in 1999, when I first spoke to Conte in Australia, I asked him why he was investigating the physics of dynamic pharmaceuticals, and his response was that homeopathy had saved his life, and besides being curious, he was paying something back to it. Dr. Conte suffered from Parkinson’s. Well aware of the emissive qualities of homoeopathic remedies, for his diathesis he simply wore a bag of homoeopathic pilules of a particular remedy tied around his neck.
It doesn’t take even a tinge  of genius to recognize a real one. It just takes humility and a little math: Never before or since has any man or woman done anything on the magnitude of what Hahnemann did. Recognizing it, Conte was determined to divine its Nature in his own terms. Conte insisted that the medicines of MQL be grafted from the sugar in Hahnemann’s original kit, to be distributed in lead shielded containers to protect them from degradation in moving them through the graitational field.
One of his more notable achievements was the instigation of signal testing of urine for determining the remedy. Only Conte’s genius for statistical wave analysis could determine such a thing in the verum light of homoeopathy.
Using nuclear magnetic resonance imaging instrumentation (NMR) the Theory authors reported several influences on the potency of the homoeopathic remedy, such as heat, electromagnetism and UV, making a case for lead shielding; and gravity: According to Conte et al, from NMR analysis, moving a homoeopathic remedy through the planet’s gravitational field affected its quality, making a case for the use of materials of local manufacture.
It took years for me to comprehend that I was not alone in the structure of my disbelief. At first I found myself rejecting what I had been led to believe didn’t exist by homeopaths and skeptics alike. The technospeak of the instrumental test and biochemical invitro literature is neither easy to read nor understand. It’s like trying to walk in quicksand when you’re used to running on blacktop. Even with a dictionary I sometimes found myself stumped. So in 1999 when I began my study of the physical properties of homeopathic medicine and their effects on non human subjects, I had a hard time believing what I was reading, and subsequently  Rolland Conte became my only real friend in this world of the possible-impossible, he was my sole source of inspiration that spoke to me in a human voice. When most homeopaths were insisting such indices and effects were impossible, didn’t exist or didn’t matter if they did exist, Rolland Conte was rolling contrary.
One homeopath told me he’d prefer it if homeopathics were placebos, and I came to believe that most homeopaths felt the same way, and that they accepted the accusation of “placeboist” gratefully, for it added to their mystique and made for a cheap malpractice insurance policy. To break this deadlock in my own mind, Dr. Conte told me to test homoeopathy’s dynamic solutions on plants.
Given his encouragement I designed two simple kitchen tests, one using balloons placed over the openings of beer bottles that had been filled with aqueous solutions of yeast and sugar, and either a drop of liquid Staphysagria potency solution, made from a lactose sugar pill,  or the inert vehicle with the same amount of unpotentized sugar.
The potency solution showed a remarkable ability over the control to sustain a gas output, long after the yeast culture treated with the inert control solution had reabsorded the gas.
I then did a second botanical test, inspired by Dr. Conte. It was done on oat seeds also using Staphysagria. The treated seeds grew remarkably longer and greener than the untreated before they died.
Tests of this kind in 1999 were unheard of by most of the homeopathic community. If it wasn’t for Rolland Conte I would have never attempted such a thing. I wouldn’t have even thought of it. He taught me the impossible was possible.
Much of Conte’s work was done without double blinding. When I asked Dr. Conte about this he said, “You need both eyes open to study homoeoepathy.”

British homeopath and chemist Lionel Milgrom replicated Conte’s NMR experiments and found the dilutions to be affected by silica ions from the glass containers. This was taken by many to mean that the NMR was reading the signal of the glass alone, and was not proof of a relevant phenomenon. The fact is that silica amplifies the isotope’s signal .
One night at about three AM French time I received a call from Conte on Skype. I asked him what he was doing. He said he was eating cheese and drinking wine. I saw this as an opportunity to ask him about the silica. He said in that wonderful French non chalance, “you ought to tell the glass manufacturers about that.”

Rolland Conte follows his wife Madeleine and leaves behind him a research foundation in his name.

John Benneth, Homoeopath

  Call for free consultation 503 819 7777


Follow the John Benneth Journal on Twitter:

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter


In a message on the Minutus homeopathy discussion list dated 8/29/2013 2:34:27 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD writes:

“Dr. Jurgen Schulte is a physicist, quantum physicist and homeopath.

“At the 2012 Brisbane conference, he gave a talk about quantum physics and homeopathy, where he described in detail the experiments he performed to explain the mechanism of action through quantum physics. The conclusion was that he could not, the experiments were inconclusive.”


Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. “The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind”.


[Joe Rozencwajg is the author of [ Third Millenium Homeopathy ]


On Fri Aug 30 2013 John Benneth writes,

Joe, what has quantum physics explained? Not anything that I can think of . . at the moment. It’s raised some very interesting anomalies, like entanglement, but I suspect they may have made it seem inexplicable.

Regarding Scholten, isn’t he known for his periodic table of supramoleculars? Can they really can’t be considered as legitimate homeopathics until they’re properly proven? It is sort of like Colin Griffith and his dream provers in “The New Materia Medica,” taking a detour around the lengthy, hard work of proving. 

Where were Scholten’s physical “experiments” published? What were they? What was he testing for and why, for what purpose? There have been numerous pre-clinical tests of supramoleculars that show their physical distinctions and biochemical action that I believe can be explained in the terms of classical science, although I don’t know anymore where the line is drawn between classical and quantum science. 

You say he’s a physicist AND a “quantum” physicist? Why should there be any difference between the two? Does a physicist stop reading when he runs into the word quantum?

So really, what does it mean when he says he doesn’t know? Why should that come as a surprise?

So far, I’m not too impressed with physicists. They seem to be very good at creating messes and entirely incompetent at cleaning them up. Hanford in Washington State USA  is a prime example, so is Cherynoble, so is Fukishima, and hundreds of other disasters around the planet that will eventually happen unless somebody figures out how to undo what they did, and homeopathy offers the only solution I can think of . . [!]

From what I’ve seen, physics is an unmitigated disaster, like little children lighting matches and playing with fire, indoors, under the drapes. If the human race disappears from the face of the planet, it will be because of physicists who made it and homeopaths who failed to clean it up.

Physicists do the crime, homeopaths do the time.

What surprises me is how little they seem to know about classical science and reality in general, and nuclear physics in particular. From what I’ve seen they can’t ask questions and can’t even say how they got home last night.

Homeopathy doesn’t need quantum physics to explain it. I think homeopathy can be explained by piecing together the physical experiments that have been done with the known classical science of the material and plasma sciences, and sp[ecifically the sciences regarding water . As Professor Rustum Roy, head of Penn State’s material sciences said, its up to the skeptics to disprove homeopathy:

“This paper does not deal in any way with, and has no bearing whatsoever on, the clinical efficacy of any homeopathic remedy. However, it does definitively demolish the objection against homeopathy, when such is based on the wholly incorrect claim that since there is no difference in composition between a remedy and the pure water used, there can be no differences at all between them. We show the untenability of this claim against the central paradigm of materials science that it is structure (not composition) that (largely) controls properties, and structures can easily be changed in inorganic phases without any change of composition. The burden of proof on critics of homeopathy is to establish that the structure of the processed remedy is not different from the original solvent. The principal conclusions of this paper concern only the plausibility of the biological action of ultradiluted water remedies, they are based on some very old (e.g. homeopathy) and some very new (e.g. metallic and nanobubble colloids) observations which have been rejected on invalid grounds or due to ignorance of the materials research literature and its theoretical basis. This constitutes an excellent example of the common error in rejecting new scientific discoveries by using the absence of evidence as evidence for absence.”

The Structure Of Liquid Water; Novel Insights From Materials Research; Potential Relevance To Homeopathy. Materials Research Innovations Online 5 77

best wishes,

John Benneth

You have to read what’s next:  Heavy Water! Transduction and Homeopathy

Read it here first: SUBSCRIBE to the John Benneth Journal . . do it now!


Victims of the Great Genius Support Group

Here’s a new blog that may change your basic outlook on science, called

Support Group.

The first entry is entitled “The Speed of Now.” 

I encourage you to be the first to take a look and comment.

John Benneth, Homeopath

503 819 7777


A Journal commentator who goes by the name Madgav writes:

It does sound as though you’re suggesting that, because science does not explain everything, we should act as though it explains nothing.

“Like produces like. Dogs come from dogs, humans from humans, etc.
Like attracts like. We don’t see that humans are attracted to monkeys, apart from a few exceptions and that in a very limited way.
Like imitates like. We don’t see the donkey playing lion.
Like cures like, as homoeopathy always proves.
Like neutralises like. The antidote will always neutralise the effect of the previous remedy.”

This was a particularly interesting series of assertions:

To clarify then, your ‘like comes from like’ comment would seem at odds with evolution (dolphins coming from terrestrial mammals etc). ‘Like attracts like’ you already debunked… ‘like imitates like’ denies mimicry and ‘like neutralises like’ seems to ignore the basic principles of chemistry (for example, acid neutralising base).

Obviously ‘like cures like’ is a central tenet of homeopathy. But I have yet to see anyone with vomiting respond better with ipecac than they do with metoclopramide.

Could you perhaps expand on your thoughts here? Your post did read like a ‘stream of consciousness’ and a little clarification would perhaps aid comprehension.

John Benneth responds

Dear Madgav,

Actually, what I’ev been saying to both the ske[ptic andhomeoapth alike is that homeopathy can be explained in terms of classical science. Not quantum, but nuts and bolts material science, and that if you look for it, you can find examples that simply haven’t been hooked up to homeopathy yet. 

It is the prevailing assumption of those who oppose homeopathy, and most homeopaths have unfortuantely believed them.

I have rule: Don’t believe the opposition. Not a word. They’re either stupid or flat out lying, the second includes the first. That it is idiopathic, that its principles cannot be found outside of it in classical science, is a lie that has been racing around now for decades.

Reception follows not without knock: Whether or not homeopathy can be explained by the material sciences is one of the world’s most important questions, for if such elegance, surviving the relentless attack of allopathy, can at last be described in the language of classical science, then the stage is set for a massive shift in the practice of  internal medicine. The only way to know is to ask. Is there a classic analog to similia similibus curentur? The door opens. There is.  The action of llike cures like can be seen chemically and energetically, as well as biologically.
Madgav here, for example has already stuck his neck out about it. He assumes there isn’t anything in the normal view of it that could  explain the Hahnemannian hypothesis that like cures like, even though he’s unoubtedly heard that y0u can fight fire with fire, and he’s probably been told numerous times to pick on somebody his own size, because if he would, he’d get his clock cleaned, as I’m about to do.

Water is the universal solvent, technically a polar protic solvent. In chemistry, observing the aciton of solvents we see that like dissolves like. In that more people who want to argue the paradox of homeopathic medicine aren’t aware of these principles or simply haven’t applied what they know from observing and experiencing it, shows a basic error in allopathic thinking, that errors must always be corrected by the mass action of opposing forces.

Protic means that it is capable of donating a hydrogen ion. Polar means that it is has magnetically opposing poles, the hydrogen end of the water molecule having two positives, the opposite end two negative ones. We also know that the simillimum principle in homeopathy of like cures like also has an analog in the magnetic law that says opposites attract, while like repels like.

Vaccines are a prime examples of the use of non-dynamized type of homeopathy, although it would tehcnically be called isopathy, treating disease with an indetical agent.  which in the dynamic form is sometime used by homeoapths to open a case. isopahty works, but poorly compared to homeopathy. (Hahnemann, Hering)
The action of similia, in biology, is seen as a phenomenon called hormesis, also expressed as the Arndt Schultz law. Poisons that kill in large amounts have been found to stimulate in small amounts, which is exactly what Hahnemann discovered after cutting down material dosages of the substances used as medicines during his day
It was due to the abuses of the allopathic approach, which tries to correct problems by overwhelming them with substances that produce opposite symptoms, that led Hahnemann, an accomplished allopathic physician and chemist, to start cutting back dosages to his patients. This was after had  left the practice of medicine entirely,  in disgust, after seeing what the allopathic approach did to his patients.  But love of his children, and demand for his services is what led him back to medicine to begin experimenting with lighter dosages.
What he discovered was that even when by drastic dilution he had cut the dosage back to practically nothing, people were still reacting to it. Even when adminstering remedies that were well above the molecular limit, Hahnemann was disturbed to see people still aggravated by them. Only in the last years of his career in the developement of the fifty millesimal scale did he find a posology that appeared to be consistent with his oath to do no harm.

Early on Hahnemann  discovered that dilution of substances, which in their whole material form we’re medically inert, when made into crytallized extractions  by succussion and dilution became effective drugs with properties unsupected in their gross material form.
Lycopodium, made from the spores of the club moss, is a good example of dynamic caenogenesis, the creation of new symptomology from an inert substance by potentization. When dynamized, Lycopodium causes symptoms unknown in its gross form.  Dynamized Lycopodium, by the way, is what I see as the cyberskeptic’s remedy. The issues for cyberskeptics are bullying, cowardice and impotence, symptomology Lycopodium addresses, and is one of the Western world’s most common remedy patterns. Politicans, scientists, managers, American males have a great  number of Lycopodium types among them. According to Philip Bailey, MD, author of “Homeopathic Psychology,” you can walk into a science classroom and every one of them will be a Lycopodium. I have seen something similar, as has Kaviraj. I suspect, however, that genius level scientists are not Lycopodium, and I think BDJ is a prime example. 

Perhaps whoever is doing the chemtrail operation could be induced to add in a little . . oh,  never mind.  I myself have been characterized as a Lycopodium, although I have found Sulphur to have more dramatic relief. In review of my videos, one homeopath, noting drastic character changes in  presentation, said my simillimum appears to be molybdenum . . I have found that to be very insightful. Some of these homeopaths, like Kaviraj or Dr. Shashi Sharma of Hahnemann College in London, are so experienced they can see a person’s simillimum within moments of meeting them.
So now you have three natural orthodox corollaries of the central medical theme of homeopathy, one that is chemical and the other electromagnetic, and seen some examples of it.
Similia can be applied with having to use homeopathic remedies. Cooks know that when burned, if they hold the burn back over the heat briefly, it will help it to stop hurting quicker. If you have a cough, try a smoking a little tobacco. If you’re cold, try taking a cold shower . . or if hot, a hot one.
Similia suggests a whole new way of dealing with the world. Pushing the paradigm a little further is a good way to get it to correct itself.

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

The Water Bridge

Sometimes I get fooled into thinking people are listening, when in reality, they aren’t, they aren’t at all. They’re just pretending to listen. They not even interested after seeing something that dramatically proves the point. What they’re doing is just waiting for me to stop talking, or in the case of a blog, to stop writing, so they can climb up onstage.
The stupidest people don’t want to listen, they just wan’t to talk. They can hog the whole conversation with a drawn out monolgue, and then when they finally do ask my opinion, and I pick myself up off the floor and manage to get a byte’s worth of words out, like “may I have a glass of water, please?” they start in all over again.
“Water? Let me tell you about water. There’s tap, distilled, ice, soda, mineral ,hot, boiling, cold, salt, dirty, with a twist of lemon and a straw, or . . ”
I get hit with another entire monologue before i can even put my head back down.
Same way with a blog. This one’s essentially meant to be a scientific discussion about the mysterious and seemingly anomalous action of water as used in homeopathy, so you would expect
the commennts to be scientically oriented, and say things like “Water? H2O, hydroxl, H-O-H, is one of the few elements that can be easily seen in all three phases of matter, solid, liquid and gas, and a fourth one, supercritical. It’s a polar protic universal solvent with a small tetrahedrally shaped molecule solvent and . .”
But look at most of the miserable comments. Aside from the Great Kaviraj and a few by an occasional homeoapth, most of the comments are from people who are stubbornly opposed to homeopathy and don’t have anything to do with the topic at all. Most of the comments are about me, regarding deficiencies in my character. Well, certainly I admit there could be a few, but to read some of these people you’d think I was wormwood.
Many of the commentators, you may notice, appear to have not even read the essay. Having no audience of there own I guess they want to borrow mine.
Well, the monuments we make to others are really no better than the monuments we make to ourselves.

There is one particular person, (well actually there are several) who does this “not listening” thing incessantly and egregiously. I’ll make my point, fall back in exhaustion, and then in great dismay hear a statement made tha tmake it obvious he wasn’t listening.
Once I went into great detail how we could get more views on our websites, and then when I was finished he said, “Do you have any ideas as to how we might get more views on our websites?”
I have found the same is true for my explanation of homeopathy. Skeptics don’t want to read my column, certainly hnot when it contains a reasonable scientific eplanation in it. They just want an excuse tot write something that makes them feel superior.
What a gift. My writing brings out the best in my readers by bringing out the worst in me. When I write a particularly good essay, the view counts drop off dramatially.

Ontology aside, I am convinced that there are no true anomalies. Idiopathy is an ideal, not a reality, and it is homeopathy, as the greater part of it, that has brought me to that conclusion, for homeopathy is regarded as one of the world’s greatest physical anomalies, one I’ve seen my way around due to the evidence. I have come to believe that what are seen as physical anomalies are simply errors in perception, just as the skeptics say. The only difference is that the errors in perception are there’s, not mine.

I can understand this on a personal level. There is probably no greater achievement than to work all your life to be remembered when you’re dead. I saved the small town of Turner, Oregon from a threat of destruction by negotiating with a man who said he was going to blow it up, removing him from its center, talking him down over a cup of coffee and walking the dear fellow into jail. He was upset, I think, because of an impending foreclosure, and because essentially no one would listen to him.
He subsequently claimed to be sitting on a ton of farm fertilizer in his feed store, he said, which he was going to detonate it with some nitro glycerin (he said). Even people in Portland would hear that, and that would be novel, they don’t listen to anyone either.
So I took the time to listen to him, very carefully. He brought up consitutional points, and as someone who had studied the state constitution with great interest, we had a topic of mutual interest.
“Did you know that for crimes the Oregon constitution demands rehabilitation over punishment?” I said.
He responded he was going to blow up Turner. I took him seriously, just as I would wish to be taken seriously if I was going to blow up a town, no matter how big it was. I’m sure everyone does.
That feat alone, bringing him through the surrounding police and television cameras undetected, meeting with him in a truck stop, should have been enough to have had some marble cut down to my size and shaped like me, but no, all it got me was a place on the front page of the Salem Statesman-Courier newspaper, jealous contempt from all the cops and a question from my wife, “when are you going to get a real job?”
The marble statue would have been been earned if my pieces had been blasted over four counties. That would have earned me the respect and approbation I craved. And if something similar were to happen now, I’m sure the comments tomorrow would be more conciliatory, too.

There is a kind of rushed feeling about it. Argentum would be the remedy I think.

Well, enough of that. The world views these things as idiopathic. Yes, I know, that’s a word that isn’t used much, so to save you having to open up another page, please forgive me for presuming that it needs a definition: Idiopathy is the belief that the material world and the life follows it, are in a disconnected state.
Idiopathically, we see a thing as a thing by itself, with no dynamic connections to us or the outside world at all. That’s the skeptical position we;’re all most ocmfortable with. Its only the palpable connections to the world around it that make it seem connecte for a moment to anything. Scientists are just now beginningto suspect that water molcules have different mangetic connections with one another thaat appeaars to transcend the hydrogen bond. As Benveniste noted 10 years ago at the Cavendish, this dynamic field view of water molecules will lead to a significant pardigm shift in medicine.
So a stone upon the shore is seen as nothing more than rock amongst others, with no connections to its fellows amongst who it sits, except for the connections we make for it in our minds, until that too is broken and it is picked up and thrown out of view, into the lake.
Infinitesimally the lake is seen as the rocks on the shore, a haphazard collection of singular parts, with no other connection than physical proximity, H2O molecules jostling one other like stones in a bucket.
But this is not the way the world is constructed. All things are dynamically conneccted, and people are no exception.
Molecules of water are not free entities as the rocks on the shore appear to be. Like humans, converse to popular belief, they do not exist alone. I challenge anyone to separate one from its kin and show it to me. I think it is not possible. I think there is no such thing as an idiopathic water molecule.
Neither can their true character be known by modeling them alone, and yet this is exactly what we do in the study of them. We model them alone as if they separate and apart, and so that is how we think of them.
And that, sadly, is how we think of ourselves too often I fear. Alone, when in fact every water molecule within us is dynamically, magnetically, connected directly to as many as four other water molecules around it, an beyond, a fifth connection. Water can be seento behave as if within a dynamic field.
There are indirect intermolecular forces that connect water molecules with one another, which demonstrates the magnetic interconnectiveness of of all living things, for water is the most common element in our sphere, around and within us.
If water molecules cannot have a sustained magnetic connection, then how do they support a water bridge?

Density gradientsobject width=”480″ height=”385″>