I think the confusion is the use of the concept of "Memory". As stated else where on this post, I think it appropriate to use the concept of a "record of the event, change, interaction, intrusion or addition".
A mere record of an event would not assume Sentience.

Substances released by the different species of flowers could interfere with the regular polarization pattern of the water molecules. Pure water molecules have an angular v-shape configuration. To imply that two hydrogen atoms bonded with an oxygen atom could have any degree of memory (sentience) is ludicrous. The individual cells of our bodies (in spite of their complexity) are essentially bags of chemicals reacting with each other and the chemicals from our system going in and out of the cell membrane.

I call poppycock.

The video said that all the experimenters used water from the same batch. So the only way that they could get different results from each other would be by some action of the experimenter, that is, if the conditions under which the experiment was performed by all the experimenters were the same, otherwise it would not be a scientific experiment that could be evaluated. Apparently, the supply of water has no memory since the experimenters got different results from each other.

What?...has nothing to do with the experimenter performing the experiment...I don't get where you are getting that.
This seemed to me to be an honest attempt, sorely lacking the data we all look for, but an honest attempt just the same.

I get what you were saying about the magnification of molecules and it's really hard to see the underlying structure.

So what occurs is due to the experimenter performing the experiment? Thus some kind of connection between the experimenter's physical existence and the liquid? It was said liquids were used from same batch and an experimenter gets repeatable results but another person will get different results under the same conditions. So time to check the setup.

Were the water samples used be each person from the same water sample? I would have liked to have had a reference sample used in the four experiments. Samples from different sources will have different solutes and those give different compositions and thus give different results. Nothing new here, just some nice pictures.

It is pseudoscience because there is no reason to believe that memory occurs in non-living matter without any evidence.

Supposedly all the drops came from the same source at the same time...or at least, that is what is conveyed.

There is no view of molecules there. They are very hard to view and when are, then just bumpy smudges averaging the electron densities. I doubt that the molecules are changing. What is observed are emergent qualities due to different compositions of the liquid, The only change was the use of different liquids by different experimenters.

No, I would not have used that metaphor...we don't know that, but clearly a change took place. I would of suggested that it showed a record of the change...which, I think, is simply the observation.

It's still interesting...how often do we get to view molecules changing like this.

Doing only the science that the government will fund.

And...this article was not pseudoscience...this was an honest experiment, although much to be desired, and the metaphor's and posing questions lack thoughts on how to go forward.

personally, I would have liked to see experiments on liquids that do not contain H2O to see if they react the same way.

Last sentence makes no sense.

So you would mistakenly say that the liquids in this experiment might have some kind of memory?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpJ-k...

Another polywater type of observation:

https://slate.com/technology/2013/11/...

Nassim Haramein, the amateur scientist, does not recognize that math and physics are not the same. Physics must obey math but math does not imply physics. Physics is a science and math is a logical mental activity which must be consistent but not built from only from observation of physical reality. As mental activity of describing measurements and relations, it is not reifiable, i.e., does not exist in physical reality and is just a conceptual activity.
He thinks he can calculate the mass of an electron from some physical constants which include the Rydberg constant which is calculated with the electron mass being physically measured. Just numerology there.

Please clarify "Crony science like here in the states." Is that some kind new age view of modern science?

https://www.quora.com/What-do-physici...

Do you go looking for pseudoscience sites on purpose?

Memory definition, the capacity or faculty of retaining and reviving facts, events, impressions, etc., or of recalling or recognizing previous experiences.

I understood the use of the concept of "memory" to be metaphoric at this point. However, it is interesting that the molecular structure of all the water molecules in the glass recorded the same change.
(I think it would be appropriate to use the term "recorded" in this experiment)

However: Memory definition, the capacity or faculty of retaining and reviving facts, events, impressions, etc., or of recalling or recognizing previous experiences.
That kind of fits, doesn't it?

I am still wondering if other liquids, absent of H20, would show the same results, like oil products but I suppose there is some H20 in that too, maybe.

The written part of the article I posted in the commentary was better. Not the best study I've read to date but it still is interesting.

Using "Memory" as a metaphor at this point in these studies should be tempered in my estimation.

That's not memory, that's the residue of previous exposures--a simple function of causality. Walk in rain, get mud on your shoes. Do your shoes now have memory? Beware of concept pollution.

Of course organic molecules from the flower would alter the structure of water. It may be that the article means to indicate that the water did not contain any such molecules, but the description of the experiment did not make that clear.

This sounds closer to mysticism than to science. At this point, I am not impressed. Perhaps a more detailed report would knock my socks off, but as of right now they are still firmly on my feet.

Jan

Agreed...I remember reading an article 15/20 years ago that claimed that water's memory could be erased...interesting prospect, never read anything more on that one.
Seems to me if that were possible it would be the ultimate decontamination procedure.

The original article was on the Resonant Science foundation site I posted in my commentary...didn't read any of that there.

I agree about youtube sites, got to be choosy, but the sound was better there than the one posted in the article.

Doc99's comment made an interesting point, check it out.

The reason gold looks the same is gold is an element. The water molecule is made of two seperate elements (hydrogen and oxygen), and when in liquid form it breaks into H+ and OH- ions and back into H2O molecules over and over. This is basic chemistry. So if you place water next to a charged medium (for example, the gel) the water will seperated into its ions and form an interface between the gel and the bulk water. The reason infrared light disrupts this equilibrium is it is also heat. So where the light shines it causes the water molecules to change state more quickly between it H2O form and it ions.

For anyone to prove water has memory, they would need to make sure there is zero contamination from any sources. Even a slight imperfection in the glass slide would cause a change in structure of the water molecules. Then there is temperature which would need to be maintained to such a point that it would probably be near impossible.

Old.. your points:
'if' - if !
There is no proposition that can be verified or falsified.
I do not watch youtubes. I spent time on their website, hence the opinion.
I noted quantum this, quantum that, energized crystals, black holes, ancient whatever, many links do not work, those that do go to advertising courses.
In this context the word 'science' means the same as in climate science.