Get Email Updates from Google
Dr. Werner Tries to Use Physics to Explain Homeopathy
Dr. Werner explains homeopathy in terms of relativity, string theory and squeaky knees. This is actually one of the better arguments for homeopathy.
continued below ....“What is a cell, right. Does a cell have mass? Not much. Right. Yeah. Every one of us vibrates. This can cause squeaky knees. Homeopathy can cure it!”
| Recommended Products: |
Tweet Me!
|
4 Responses to “Dr. Werner Tries to Use Physics to Explain Homeopathy”
Post Your Message
*Mass vs. Volume
She attempts to argue that there is not a lot of mass in the universe because the universe can be condensed to the size of a bowling ball. She is confusing mass (the amount of matter something has) with volume (the amount of space it takes up).
Just because you can condense something into a small volume doesn’t mean it is not much mass. Just look at black holes. She’s also wrong about how small the universe can get. The universe can get microscopic. We know this because it used to be microscopic during the first seconds after the Big Bang.
Regardless of how small you make the universe, we are still talking about the entire mass of the universe. If that isn’t a lot of mass, then nothing is.
*Crossing out Mass from E=MC^2
Having (erroneously) determine that all the mass of the universe is infitesimal, being near zero, she then claims that this reduces E=MC^2 to = E=C^2 which she describes as Energy being equal to the speed of light.
Perhaps, instead of worrying about a basic understanding of chemistry and physics, she should have worried about a basic inderstanding of math. The right-hand side of the equation is Mass TIMES the Speed of Light Squared. If you make Mass = 0, then, as any third-grader can tell you, 0 times anything is 0. She’s not making the equation E=C^2, she’s making it E=0.
*Speed of Light vs. Light itself
The C in E=MC^2 refers to the speed of light, not light itself. It is just called the speed of light because it was through the study of light that we determined that its speed was the fasted that anything can go. It is the maxium speed that anything in the universe can go. Light happens to go that fast because it is massless. Hypothetically, the graviton (the fundamental particle responsible for gravity) also travels this fast. “Speed of light” is just a name and does not actually refer to photons.
*Stephen Hawkings & String Theory
Stephen Hawkings did not “give us the String Theory”. While Hawkings may have done investigation and research into it, he is not one of the big players. String Theory has many names attached to it and has been developed from many different (and seemingly unrelated) disciplines. No single person “gave it” to us. NOr did he (or anyone) discover the strings of string theory. They are hypothesized to exist but we lack the ability to detect them.
She then goes on to describe string theory, and gets it completely wrong. Strings are not “other ‘energetic particples’ in the universe … shaped like u-ies”. String theory states that the existing elementary particles (electrons, quarks, neutrinos, photons, etc) are, themselves, strings. These strings come in different shapes and dimensions (1-dimensional open strings, 1-dimensional closed strings, multi-dimensional “branes”).
She then makes a giantic leap and then associates the vibrations of these strings with the hairs in our inner ear that convert vibrations into electrical impulses. She doesn’t really explain the connection, so there isn’t much to comment on.
*Cell components
She describes our cells as having:
“Cell wall, cell membrane, cytoplasm”.
Animal cells do not have cell walls.
*Subatomic structures
Electrons, protons and neutrons are not “pieces of energy”. E=MC^2 does not say that mass *is* energy, but that it can be converted to energy.
*Tying it together
She then argues that because there isn’t much mass, then we must be made of energy. No. We are mass. If you were an infinitesimal amount of mass, then you’d have no weight. If your mass was converted into energy, then you’d be a nuclear bomb.
*Definition of disease.
Well, that’s easy: “an impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning”
It most certainly isn’t transforming our “energy state” into “something different”.
The rest of this presentation just takes the above foundation of pseudoscience and goes off the deep end.
In short, she never explains how homeopathy works. Yes, she claims that it can change your “energy state” from one to another, but doesn’t explain how.
There is a very good reason why she fails to explain why homeopathy works, and that is also why she uses her form of pseudoscience to puzzle and amaze her gullible clients – because its a load of nonsense! Really we need more people like Dr. Werner, as then people will start to realize what a con these “alternative medicines” really are.
Next week she will be presenting a seminar on how palaeontology helps to explain crystal healing. Can’t wait!
This woman has produced more BS in 10 minutes than most cows do in their lifetimes.
She doesn’t know the difference between mass and volume. She can’t even get Hawking’s name correct: it is NOT Steven HawkingS. He did not develop string theory. String theory has nothing to do with vision and hearing. She has no understanding of disease.
Yeah, and what is most worrying is that a lot of people will admire her amazing scientific knowledge and buy her product. There should be a law against tricking people with made up science.