Can Inert/Inactive subsances affect/effect?

[Kumar]

Hello,

We have discussed a lot in "Question on Thermodynamic equilibrium?" There looks to be a need of new thread for specific discussions about topic subject.

"Inert: having only a limited ability to react chemically; chemically inactive."

"Inactive: not participating in a chemical reaction; chemically inert.

Above are the definitions(though can be more) of these terms.

Are these not relevant to just chemically inertness or inactiveness?

Apart from this, can't there be some energitic activeness from these by their reflections, refractions, emissions, absorptions, heat, motions, magnetic field, etc. of electromagnetic spectrums by any interactions with these? As such, can these affect and/or effect?

Probably "a true colour or even black & white photo can be affecting or effecting us by its reflected spectrum? How efficacy or adversity of a medicine can be affected and/or effected as a result of using "different inactive ingredients (DII)" with same API in this thought of "energetic activeness" by DII use or by thermodynamic equilibrium between the constituents in medicines?

[Gems and gold can still attract humans and theives]

Best wishes.

[kellyb]

I see the question marks, but again I have absolutely no idea what the question is.

Are you asking if putting various inactive ingredients together can make them active?

Or are you asking if inactive ingredients might be active in some mysterious way?

Are you basically just trying to say "homeopathy has to be possible somehow"?

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by kellyb

I see the question marks, but again I have absolutely no idea what the question is.

Are you asking if putting various inactive ingredients together can make them active?

Or are you asking if inactive ingredients might be active in some mysterious way?

Are you basically just trying to say "homeopathy has to be possible somehow"?

Hello kelly,

There is nothing homeopathic in this unless you consider all energetic affects as homeopathic. I am trying to understand possibilty of energetic affects in medicines either due to API or due to different inactive ingredients or due to mixtures of API and inactive ingredients.

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Kumar

There is nothing homeopathic in this

Sure there is. You think that the more dilute your logic and understanding are, the more potent they will be. You are wrong.

Kumar, every one of your posts that I've read is either completely wrong or completely incomprehensible. You fail to make sense, and when your questions are met with patient explanations and requests for clarifications, you simply start another thread asking more bizarre questions that are based on ignorance.

Please stop filling this forum with your nonsense. If you cannot make sense and will not study the science that you claim to be interested in, you are wasting everyone's time.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Apart from this, can't there be some energitic activeness from these by their reflections, refractions, emissions, absorptions, heat, motions, magnetic field, etc. of electromagnetic spectrums by any interactions with these? As such, can these affect and/or effect?

No.

Quote:

Probably "a true colour or even black & white photo can be affecting or effecting us by its reflected spectrum?

We can see photos.

Quote:

How efficacy or adversity of a medicine can be affected and/or effected as a result of using "different inactive ingredients (DII)" with same API in this thought of "energetic activeness" by DII use or by thermodynamic equilibrium between the constituents in medicines?

It isn't.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

No.


We can see photos.


It isn't.

Alike you are looking a photo, processing its information in brain & getting emotions etc., all substances, which you sense through any sensory organ or by thinking, can afftect you, energetically. Photo is interacting and effecting you by reflected spectrum from it. Similarily God's idols, images, symbols etc, can interact with you.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Sure there is. You think that the more dilute your logic and understanding are, the more potent they will be. You are wrong.

Kumar, every one of your posts that I've read is either completely wrong or completely incomprehensible. You fail to make sense, and when your questions are met with patient explanations and requests for clarifications, you simply start another thread asking more bizarre questions that are based on ignorance.

Please stop filling this forum with your nonsense. If you cannot make sense and will not study the science that you claim to be interested in, you are wasting everyone's time.

Energetic effects are there with us, since the start of our evolution and even before it. You sense a substance, can be an energetic(energy oriented) effect. If you take it as homeopathic, I have no problem. For other things, either you can be wrong or I am mistaken. But I don't have wrong intentions. I take both materialstic and energetic agents.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Alike you are looking a photo, processing its information in brain & getting emotions etc., all substances, which you sense through any sensory organ or by thinking, can afftect you, energetically.

No.

Quote:

Photo is interacting and effecting you by reflected spectrum from it.

We can see photos.

Quote:

Similarily God's idols, images, symbols etc, can interact with you.

We can see idols, images and symbols.

They do not interact; they just sit there.

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Energetic effects are there with us, since the start of our evolution and even before it. You sense a substance, can be an energetic(energy oriented) effect. If you take it as homeopathic, I have no problem. For other things, either you can be wrong or I am mistaken. But I don't have wrong intentions. I take both materialstic and energetic agents.

No, this is total nonsense.

We see things. That's all there is to it. There's no "energetic(energy oriented) effect". We see things.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by PixyMisa

No, this is total nonsense.

We see things. That's all there is to it. There's no "energetic(energy oriented) effect". We see things.

How we see things?

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by Kumar

How we see things?

Goodbye, Kumar, and good luck with all that.

[Kumar]

Quote:

Cephalic Phase of Gastric Secretion


The cephalic phase of gastric acid secretion is elicited by the sight, smell, and taste of food (figure). Cholinergic vagal fibers and fibers from enteric plexuses mediate this phase of gastric secretion through the secretion of ACh.
http://www.lib.mcg.edu/edu/eshuphysi...4/s6ch4_13.htm

Sensation can effect.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally Posted by Kumar

How we see things?

Huh?

There is what something actually is, and then there is our perception of it. Our perception can be distorted, as we attempt to quantify it, and this can lead to inaccurate conclusions, such as the perception (by some) that homeopathy actually works.

-Dr. Imago

[Dr. Imago]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Sensation can effect.

Yes and no. This, as you describe it, is a quantifiable physiologic response to a well-understood stimulus/response phenomenon.

In homeopathy, the "perception" that a treatment works causes a distortion of belief that the treatment itself actually works, instead of an actual biophysiologic response. This is what we call the "placebo effect" and is why those who believe that homeopathy has some biologic effect are misled to a conclusion that there is an actual treatment effect.

Homeopathy effect = placebo effect.

-Dr. Imago

[Zep]

I'll repeat for those who are new to Kumarese: He does Google-searches based on a few words he manages to find about the place, then completely confuses or fails to understand the information he retrieves. The result is something like the above - complete confusion on the part of the questioner, and even more on the part of those who try to respond to him.

In short, he doesn't understand his own questions, let alone your answers.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally Posted by Zep

I'll repeat for those who are new to Kumarese: He does Google-searches based on a few words he manages to find about the place, then completely confuses or fails to understand the information he retrieves. The result is something like the above - complete confusion on the part of the questioner, and even more on the part of those who try to respond to him.

In short, he doesn't understand his own questions, let alone your answers.

I'm well-aware of Kumarese. I've been hanging around this forum since it's inception. I just can't resist myself.

-Dr. Imago

[Zep]

Yeah, I remember! This was just in case others hadn't seen the pattern yet.

Enjoy your playtime!

[PixyMisa]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Sensation can effect.

Holy shades of Pavlov's dogs, you're right! Sensation can effect! Why did I not see this before!

[Zep]

Sensational! Please, no-one tell him about platinum and other catalysts.

[flume]

Previous topics started by Kumar on these ideas of his:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=24332 "Cephalic phase" 6/'04
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=34653 "Can photograph effect?" 2/05
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=38622 "Can Energy Healings Work by Sensations?" 5/'05

etc. etc. - he has a total of 89 topics.

[ImaginalDisc]

I have the disturbing impression that if I tried to explain the concept of "catalysts" to Kumar, he'd add it to his vocabulary, incorrectly.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Hello,

We have discussed a lot in "Question on Thermodynamic equilibrium?" There looks to be a need of new thread for specific discussions about topic subject.

"Inert: having only a limited ability to react chemically; chemically inactive."

"Inactive: not participating in a chemical reaction; chemically inert.

Above are the definitions(though can be more) of these terms.

Are these not relevant to just chemically inertness or inactiveness?

Apart from this, can't there be some energitic activeness from these by their reflections, refractions, emissions, absorptions, heat, motions, magnetic field, etc. of electromagnetic spectrums by any interactions with these? As such, can these affect and/or effect?

Probably "a true colour or even black & white photo can be affecting or effecting us by its reflected spectrum? How efficacy or adversity of a medicine can be affected and/or effected as a result of using "different inactive ingredients (DII)" with same API in this thought of "energetic activeness" by DII use or by thermodynamic equilibrium between the constituents in medicines?

[Gems and gold can still attract humans and theives]

Best wishes.

At the risk of totally wasting time: yes, depending on composition/properties, inert (and inactive) matter can reflect or refract energy, absorb or give off energy. Which DOES NOT in any way mean it has special/magic/mysterious powers or effects. It just means it acts like all other matter in terms of it's properties. No photo affects us or effects us by any "reflected spectrum" though IF it has emotional signifance it might psychologically. Inactive/inert ingredients in medicine mostly (example just after this)only affect us by the mass of said ingredient which will temporarily increase our mass due to it's presence in our body. If the inert material was heated prior to our taking it in -while still hot- it will also raise our temperature for a time that can be calculated if you know: our temperature just before ingestion, our mass just before ingestion, the temperature of the matter just at ingestion, and the mass of the matter just at ingestion. No healing effect - but a definite burning feeling if the temperature of the matter is much above 130 degrees Fahrenheit. The same applies if the matter is cooled - just in opposite direction. Nothing magic, physics at work.

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc

I have the disturbing impression that if I tried to explain the concept of "catalysts" to Kumar, he'd add it to his vocabulary, incorrectly.

Why yes, yes he would!!

[ben m]

Kumar is right, sensation can affect. No, no, hear me out:

The most important part of a homeopathic drug, after all, is the label. Light-energy (quantum photons!) bounces off the label, and interacts with (excites!) rhodopsin in your eyes! Your education and heritage link you to ancient Phonecia, enabling you to understand the color-pattern-symbols called "letters" on the label. You and the homeopathic doctor are then linked via the language of the Anglo-Saxons (practitioners of earth-centered faith!) and you can understand what the doctor was saying, across boundaries of time and space! All thanks to "sensation".

Then you take the pill and say "I guess my headache has let up a bit" thanks to the Placebo Effect. It couldn't have happened without quantum physics, molecular excitations, and the wisdom of the Phonecians.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by fuelair

At the risk of totally wasting time: yes, depending on composition/properties, inert (and inactive) matter can reflect or refract energy, absorb or give off energy. Which DOES NOT in any way mean it has special/magic/mysterious powers or effects. It just means it acts like all other matter in terms of it's properties. No photo affects us or effects us by any "reflected spectrum" though IF it has emotional signifance it might psychologically. Inactive/inert ingredients in medicine mostly (example just after this)only affect us by the mass of said ingredient which will temporarily increase our mass due to it's presence in our body. If the inert material was heated prior to our taking it in -while still hot- it will also raise our temperature for a time that can be calculated if you know: our temperature just before ingestion, our mass just before ingestion, the temperature of the matter just at ingestion, and the mass of the matter just at ingestion. No healing effect - but a definite burning feeling if the temperature of the matter is much above 130 degrees Fahrenheit. The same applies if the matter is cooled - just in opposite direction. Nothing magic, physics at work.

Thanks.

How can you say that, emotional, psychological or neurogical affects are not affects or effects?

We may either get common normal/natural affects as by any food or we may get specific effects as by any single supplement or by medicine. Former, being natural are just normal but later being unnatural can be ODD, abnormal or shocking. Our body can easily process natural affects being pre-known to it, but can't process normally, so ODD affects. In a natural food, many constituents can be naturally balanced by their antagonist and synergy effects, but ODD, specific or unnatural substances can just be ODD for body to process normally. If we see full compter screen and just a specific point, it can be different affect giving as we need more concentration and strain(mean more activity) on seeing a point than hole screen. Individual colours can have different afftect than sunlight.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by ben m

Kumar is right, sensation can affect. No, no, hear me out:

The most important part of a homeopathic drug, after all, is the label. Light-energy (quantum photons!) bounces off the label, and interacts with (excites!) rhodopsin in your eyes! Your education and heritage link you to ancient Phonecia, enabling you to understand the color-pattern-symbols called "letters" on the label. You and the homeopathic doctor are then linked via the language of the Anglo-Saxons (practitioners of earth-centered faith!) and you can understand what the doctor was saying, across boundaries of time and space! All thanks to "sensation".

Then you take the pill and say "I guess my headache has let up a bit" thanks to the Placebo Effect. It couldn't have happened without quantum physics, molecular excitations, and the wisdom of the Phonecians.

If substancial disorders except few, can be cured/treated even if placebo, it can substancial benefits to people by unnecessory spendings and acquring adversities from side/adverse effects. That will be natural self healing, commonly practiced by other species in nature.

[Deetee]

Originally Posted by Gravy

Please stop filling this forum with your nonsense. If you cannot make sense and will not study the science that you claim to be interested in, you are wasting everyone's time.

Yes, it is quite pointless responding to Kumar. God knows people far more patient than me have tried and failed.

Kumar has (at least) 2 problems.
(1) Communication. This is partly because english is not his first language, but more so the fact that he abuses words he has discovered by placing them in a totally innappropriate context, and consistently fails to realise his mistake or take heed of attempts at correction from others.
(2) His raison d'etre seems to be to discover the new Theory of Everything, by which he can explain anything that is paranormal/homeopathic/medical. His quest for answers and knowledge is admirable (even likeable), but he remains entrenched in cognitive dissonance about his failure to overcome a prime condition of scientific methodology - the disproved hypothesis. Despite all the evidence placed before him to show his ideas are wrong or have no basis in reality, he just goes on, and on, and on. I think he has created a new logical fallacy - the argumentum ad infinitum.

[Kumar]

Deetee, this thread is for some purpose. Don't spam it by non-senses and TTTT.

[Deetee]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Deetee, this thread is for some purpose. Don't spam it by non-senses and TTTT.

Touche, Kumar


However, this thread already seems to have wandered off topic. Do you perchance have any idea what the OP actually wants to know?

[Kumar]

It is quite common. So one should not biased. If no one want to look into dynanamism and in future, i am not effected.

[Zep]

Originally Posted by Kumar

It is quite common. So one should not biased. If no one want to look into dynanamism and in future, i am not effected.

Good-oh, then.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Deetee, this thread is for some purpose. Don't spam it by non-senses and TTTT.

That post was completely relevant. It is only fair that posters try to understand what makes Kumar tick. After all, the way one should respond to Kumar's posts depends on how you see him.

Hans

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

That post was completely relevant. It is only fair that posters try to understand what makes Kumar tick. After all, the way one should respond to Kumar's posts depends on how you see him.

Hans

Percieved ideas can also effect. I do not say irrelavent, if one can't understand or don't want to understand due to percieved ideas. I am here or there justify that many people do understand me and I also understand them. So we exchange, whatever is needed or valid.

[krazyKemist]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Thanks.

How can you say that, emotional, psychological or neurogical affects are not affects or effects?

We may either get common normal/natural affects as by any food or we may get specific effects as by any single supplement or by medicine. Former, being natural are just normal but later being unnatural can be ODD, abnormal or shocking. Our body can easily process natural affects being pre-known to it, but can't process normally, so ODD affects. In a natural food, many constituents can be naturally balanced by their antagonist and synergy effects, but ODD, specific or unnatural substances can just be ODD for body to process normally. If we see full compter screen and just a specific point, it can be different affect giving as we need more concentration and strain(mean more activity) on seeing a point than hole screen. Individual colours can have different afftect than sunlight.

I think you need to learn the basics of chemistry and physics through a good textbook. Really. It would give you more of an idea of what energy really is, in the real, physical universe. And it's really fascinating too, well, that's why I'm in this trade.

Now, what you're stating is a common misconception of "natural" vs "synthetic" subtances. For your body, there is no difference between a molecule that is made naturally compared with the same molecule made by living organisms. That was made clear in the 1800's with the advent of organic chemistry (which is my own field). Some molecules which exist in nature are extremely toxic to you, as some synthetic molecules are beneficient. Some natural compounds are even very apt to cause cancer. Their origin does not matter, only the chemical reactions in which they can be involved in your body.

As for colors, they are just different wavelenghts of visible light. We perceive them differently because we have different cells in our eyes called cones which are specialized in detedting these different wavelenghts. You can find out how this works in any basic biochemistry textbook.

As for psychological/emotional effects on the body, those are called "psychosomatic". There is no need for "energy" to explain these. Emotions are born in the brain, and involve the release of chemical substances in the brain, and the rest of the body. For example, it has been shown that long term anxiety causes the release of the hormone cortisol. This hormone is known to downregulate the immune function and make people more vulnerable to infection. So, somebody who is very anxious for a long time is more prone to catch a cold for example. It has nothing to do with "negative energy", but everything to do with endocrinology.

the Kemist

[JoeTheJuggler]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Apart from this, can't there be some energitic activeness from these by their reflections, refractions, emissions, absorptions, heat, motions, magnetic field, etc. of electromagnetic spectrums by any interactions with these? As such, can these affect and/or effect?

Probably "a true colour or even black & white photo can be affecting or effecting us by its reflected spectrum? How efficacy or adversity of a medicine can be affected and/or effected as a result of using "different inactive ingredients (DII)" with same API in this thought of "energetic activeness" by DII use or by thermodynamic equilibrium between the constituents in medicines?

First, in the sense of causing something, "effect" is a noun and "affect" is a verb. (If you're using "affect" as a noun, you're talking about emotional expression--and please don't because you'll get even more confused.) Not a difficult thing for any ESL student to understand.

Secondly, as least regarding your concern as to the optical properties of an inert substance, I can guarantee you that they have no effect on internal human organs in the absence of photo receptors and in the absence of light. (There's simply no light to be reflected, refracted or perceived as color inside my stomach under normal circumstances.)

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Energetic effects are there with us, since the start of our evolution and even before it. You sense a substance, can be an energetic(energy oriented) effect. If you take it as homeopathic, I have no problem. For other things, either you can be wrong or I am mistaken. But I don't have wrong intentions. I take both materialstic and energetic agents.

Um, you seem to be mixing terms. What sort of exothermic reactions are you refering to?

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by krazyKemist

I think you need to learn the basics of chemistry and physics through a good textbook. Really. It would give you more of an idea of what energy really is, in the real, physical universe. And it's really fascinating too, well, that's why I'm in this trade.

Thanks.

Quote:

Now, what you're stating is a common misconception of "natural" vs "synthetic" subtances. For your body, there is no difference between a molecule that is made naturally compared with the same molecule made by living organisms. That was made clear in the 1800's with the advent of organic chemistry (which is my own field). Some molecules which exist in nature are extremely toxic to you, as some synthetic molecules are beneficient. Some natural compounds are even very apt to cause cancer. Their origin does not matter, only the chemical reactions in which they can be involved in your body.

Yes there may not be a difference between natural vs. synthetic substance at atomic and molecular level, still there is a difference in natural gems and synthetic gems with same composition. Still when we take a food, it is naturally balanced by cancellng or adding synergic and antagonist affects, resulting nett effect. Whatever toxic or useful is know to us either by experiance or by knowledge. I do not say that all substance in nature are beneficial. Both type exist and, by our natural sense(inharent sense of right and wrong) we should be able to select. Better you consider "natural to us".

Quote:

As for colors, they are just different wavelenghts of visible light. We perceive them differently because we have different cells in our eyes called cones which are specialized in detedting these different wavelenghts. You can find out how this works in any basic biochemistry textbook.

As for psychological/emotional effects on the body, those are called "psychosomatic". There is no need for "energy" to explain these. Emotions are born in the brain, and involve the release of chemical substances in the brain, and the rest of the body. For example, it has been shown that long term anxiety causes the release of the hormone cortisol. This hormone is known to downregulate the immune function and make people more vulnerable to infection. So, somebody who is very anxious for a long time is more prone to catch a cold for example. It has nothing to do with "negative energy", but everything to do with endocrinology.

the Kemist

Whatever to which we interact, by energy or by matter, that is an interaction, whether colour or other sense. Emotions may not come by itself, there has to be some stimuli resuting psycho/phisico changes and creating emotions. We usually consider brain or psychological affects as no effects. But whatever we see and react or whatever we sense and react, that is an affect.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

First, in the sense of causing something, "effect" is a noun and "affect" is a verb. (If you're using "affect" as a noun, you're talking about emotional expression--and please don't because you'll get even more confused.) Not a difficult thing for any ESL student to understand.

Now, I think, I am improving on these.

Quote:

Secondly, as least regarding your concern as to the optical properties of an inert substance, I can guarantee you that they have no effect on internal human organs in the absence of photo receptors and in the absence of light. (There's simply no light to be reflected, refracted or perceived as color inside my stomach under normal circumstances.)

I used reflection or reftaction, and obiously, these can't be without light. I am considering that reflected light/spectrum. You can't see a photo without light. In my thoughts, those inert or inactive substances, though inactive/inert via somach, can still influence us by their reflected...lights.

[Kumar]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Um, you seem to be mixing terms. What sort of exothermic reactions are you refering to?

Those energetic, can be both exo or endothermic, but stimulated by energetic stimui, with in the body.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by Kumar

Those energetic, can be both exo or endothermic, but stimulated by energetic stimui, with in the body.

IF we assume there is such a thing as "energetic stimuli", then we must also assume that there is a response to this energetic stimuli.

As such, do you have any evidence that such a thing like energetic stimuli exists?