Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

White Powder Gold


  • Please log in to reply
119 replies to this topic

#61 Saint Germain

Saint Germain

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 16 December 2009 - 07:47 PM

Is the name Vlad perhaps familiar to you?

http://www.sciencema...ad.php?tid=4700


Not that I know...

He seems to be making a white powder from the pictures I've seen.

Why the question?
  • 0

#62 Phi for All

Phi for All

    Chief Executive Offworlder

  • Moderators
  • 12,541 posts
  • LocationCO, USA

Posted 16 December 2009 - 07:50 PM

What is a non-natural phenomena?

In this instance, I refer to anything that is not explainable by mainstream science. Test results which professed to show something that doesn't agree with accepted physics would require further tests to determine what is causing such super-natural results. If further testing concludes that the test subject behaved in a manner outside of what we know should happen, then the results can be peer-reviewed so others can come to the same conclusion, or point out where the testing was flawed.

You here share the method - not an actual experiment set-up.

Can you set up this experiment:

We put our powder into a graphite vessel, covered it all with graphite powder and then heated it at 1400 Celsius for 24-36 hours. Then the tiny metallic particles produced during this time and the remaining powder were assayed – and guess what, the mixture assayed as silica, gold, copper, magnesium, potassium, chromium, iron, sulphur, etc. When it is done in an inert atmosphere and not just under air, the results are somewhat different. The result of this method somewhat changes depending on reaction time and temperature. In some cases, the reduced powder contained some rhodium, platinum, etc.

... as a double-blind trial where the experimenters test several "white powders" without knowing which is "white powder gold" and also without knowing what results are expected? In this fashion you would eliminate any bias on the part of the observers and you would also elicit different approaches to solving why they see something extraordinary about the reactions of one of those "white powders", and new experiments could be conducted under equal peer-review.

In our case, what type of prediction would you be making?

If your test results can be reproduced every time, then any of the results would be predictable. Predict that the elemental nature of the subject will change, or its mass will be affected.
  • 0

#63 toastywombel

toastywombel

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 735 posts

Posted 16 December 2009 - 07:57 PM

As fun as this been SaintGermain seems as if he/she does not accept known science, such as how the brain works and about monatomic gold. I am now going to withdraw from this conversation as it seems he/she will advocate for monatomic gold no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.
  • 0
Being right is overrated.

#64 Saint Germain

Saint Germain

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 16 December 2009 - 08:08 PM

In this instance, I refer to anything that is not explainable by mainstream science. Test results which professed to show something that doesn't agree with accepted physics would require further tests to determine what is causing such super-natural results. If further testing concludes that the test subject behaved in a manner outside of what we know should happen, then the results can be peer-reviewed so others can come to the same conclusion, or point out where the testing was flawed.


Ok, so you do realize our current understanding is a limited approximation of reality and that "un-natural" can very well be natural in another understanding.

Can you set up this experiment:
... as a double-blind trial where the experimenters test several "white powders" without knowing which is "white powder gold" and also without knowing what results are expected? In this fashion you would eliminate any bias on the part of the observers and you would also elicit different approaches to solving why they see something extraordinary about the reactions of one of those "white powders", and new experiments could be conducted under equal peer-review.

If your test results can be reproduced every time, then any of the results would be predictable. Predict that the elemental nature of the subject will change, or its mass will be affected.


Sure - put any white powder - NaOH under the study of spectroscopy, and the machine will tell show you the rays and you will be able to conclude that this is indeed NaOH.

Now the spectroscopy has been performed more than once, at Cornell, in Russia (don't know the exact university though) and in private labs.

We used X-ray analysis with 8 different X-ray heads, tunneling microscopy, diffraction, fluorescent microscopy, all these wonderful technologies, and the spectroscopist confirmed the presence of iron, silica and aluminum. Once again, we worked to remove these elements from the sample. When they no longer showed up on the spectroscopic analysis, the spectroscopist pronounced that there was now nothing, yet there was still material present.

According to the Soviet Academy of Sciences, proper spectroscopic analysis requires a 300 second burn instead of the 15 seconds as done in the US. When you do this, you have to sheath the electrode with an inert gas to remove all oxygen and prevent the electrode from burning away too fast. The equipment was setup to use argon as the inert gas so they could achieve a 300 second burn.

Using this process, within the first 15 seconds, we got the standard readings of iron, silica and aluminum and sometimes traces of calcium. After that, nothing else was read until 90 seconds into the burn, where palladium began to read, at 110 seconds, platinum began to read, at 130 seconds, ruthenium began to read, at 140-150 seconds rhodium began to read, at 190, iridium began to read, at 220 osmium begins to read.


All the italic writings come from here http://www.treasurea...s-exotic-nature

Now double bind experiments are indeed useful in domains in which the human factor plays a major role (in such cases as medicine testing) but also coming in so called "hard sciences" with quantum theory with the observer effect.

As you can imagine, the equipment has been checked - the experiences repeated to find what was causing these strange behaviors, and of course the experiences have been repeated, in various labs.

The predictions can be made regarding the weight - and regarding which element it will be tested as depending on the temperature, as illustrated in the text in italic.

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

As fun as this been SaintGermain seems as if he/she does not accept known science, such as how the brain works and about monatomic gold. I am now going to withdraw from this conversation as it seems he/she will advocate for monatomic gold no matter what evidence is presented to the contrary.


On the contrary my friend.

I know that science works with models, and that models are limited approximations that evolve through time.

With the present understanding, the greatest mysteries of the brain, that is memory and consciousness, still remain unexplained.

Which illustrates that the current model is at best highly incomplete.

Now for the fifth time, I offer a perspective, I do not advocate, intend to convince or anything.

It seems that many are insisting to prove that it is a fraud, a scam, with discredit such as your above suggestion.

Edited by Saint Germain, 16 December 2009 - 08:17 PM.
Consecutive posts merged.

  • 0

#65 toastywombel

toastywombel

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 735 posts

Posted 16 December 2009 - 08:43 PM

Ok, so you do realize our current understanding is a limited approximation of reality and that "un-natural" can very well be natural in another understanding.



Sure - put any white powder - NaOH under the study of spectroscopy, and the machine will tell show you the rays and you will be able to conclude that this is indeed NaOH.

Now the spectroscopy has been performed more than once, at Cornell, in Russia (don't know the exact university though) and in private labs.

We used X-ray analysis with 8 different X-ray heads, tunneling microscopy, diffraction, fluorescent microscopy, all these wonderful technologies, and the spectroscopist confirmed the presence of iron, silica and aluminum. Once again, we worked to remove these elements from the sample. When they no longer showed up on the spectroscopic analysis, the spectroscopist pronounced that there was now nothing, yet there was still material present.

According to the Soviet Academy of Sciences, proper spectroscopic analysis requires a 300 second burn instead of the 15 seconds as done in the US. When you do this, you have to sheath the electrode with an inert gas to remove all oxygen and prevent the electrode from burning away too fast. The equipment was setup to use argon as the inert gas so they could achieve a 300 second burn.

Using this process, within the first 15 seconds, we got the standard readings of iron, silica and aluminum and sometimes traces of calcium. After that, nothing else was read until 90 seconds into the burn, where palladium began to read, at 110 seconds, platinum began to read, at 130 seconds, ruthenium began to read, at 140-150 seconds rhodium began to read, at 190, iridium began to read, at 220 osmium begins to read.


All the italic writings come from here http://www.treasurea...s-exotic-nature

Now double bind experiments are indeed useful in domains in which the human factor plays a major role (in such cases as medicine testing) but also coming in so called "hard sciences" with quantum theory with the observer effect.

As you can imagine, the equipment has been checked - the experiences repeated to find what was causing these strange behaviors, and of course the experiences have been repeated, in various labs.

The predictions can be made regarding the weight - and regarding which element it will be tested as depending on the temperature, as illustrated in the text in italic.


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged


On the contrary my friend.

I know that science works with models, and that models are limited approximations that evolve through time.

With the present understanding, the greatest mysteries of the brain, that is memory and consciousness, still remain unexplained.

Which illustrates that the current model is at best highly incomplete.

Now for the fifth time, I offer a perspective, I do not advocate, intend to convince or anything.

It seems that many are insisting to prove that it is a fraud, a scam, with discredit such as your above suggestion.


Really everyone on this forum is aware that it is a scam, I was attempting to show you that monatomic gold is a scam, but you are not interested in hearing that.
  • 0
Being right is overrated.

#66 Cap'n Refsmmat

Cap'n Refsmmat

    Mr. Wizard

  • Administrators
  • 11,748 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 16 December 2009 - 08:49 PM

Saint Germain, the point is that the results of all these "studies" done on this mysterious substance should be published in a journal of chemistry. Peer-review does not exist to suppress weird results; it exists so that other chemists can notice "but you forgot to account for the reaction that occurs when you do x, so the sample would be contaminated" and you can improve your experiments.

The fact that this research has not been published hints at a lack of merit. (Of course, it doesn't mean the research really is flawed -- just that it hasn't been provided to anyone so they can determine if it is. Science is a fan of openness.)

I suppose one of our resident chemists can look at the claims made on the websites you linked to and see if they notice anything amiss.
  • 0

Cap'n Refsmmat
SFN Administrator


#67 Saint Germain

Saint Germain

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 16 December 2009 - 08:55 PM

Really everyone on this forum is aware that it is a scam, I was attempting to show you that monatomic gold is a scam, but you are not interested in hearing that.


Yeah, the "everyone" card huh?

When a scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. - Arthur C. Clarke

Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia. - Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.

Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible. - Simon Newcomb - The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.

Everything that can be invented has been invented. - Charles H Duell, Commissioner U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere. - New York Times, 1936.

There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States. - T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, in 1961 - The first satellite for commercial communications went into service in 1965
  • 0

#68 UC

UC

    ydoaPs just lost the game

  • Senior Members
  • 550 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey, USA

Posted 16 December 2009 - 08:59 PM

Yeah, the "everyone" card huh?

When a scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. - Arthur C. Clarke

Rail travel at high speed is not possible because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia. - Dr Dionysys Larder (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London.

Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical and insignificant, if not utterly impossible. - Simon Newcomb - The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.

Everything that can be invented has been invented. - Charles H Duell, Commissioner U.S. Office of Patents, 1899

A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth's atmosphere. - New York Times, 1936.

There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States. - T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, in 1961 - The first satellite for commercial communications went into service in 1965


That's not even an argument. Proof or stfu is basically what it comes down to.
  • 0

#69 Saint Germain

Saint Germain

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 16 December 2009 - 09:04 PM

Saint Germain, the point is that the results of all these "studies" done on this mysterious substance should be published in a journal of chemistry. Peer-review does not exist to suppress weird results; it exists so that other chemists can notice "but you forgot to account for the reaction that occurs when you do x, so the sample would be contaminated" and you can improve your experiments.

The fact that this research has not been published hints at a lack of merit. (Of course, it doesn't mean the research really is flawed -- just that it hasn't been provided to anyone so they can determine if it is. Science is a fan of openness.)

I suppose one of our resident chemists can look at the claims made on the websites you linked to and see if they notice anything amiss.


Otherwise, I agree - IF one's intent was to convince the masses - this would be the approach.

The reasons why these are not made public are only speculation.

Lack of merit is a possibility, and so are flaws...

But the fact that these studies are being made by private parties rather than universities says a lot.

This type of material isn't here to shine as a scientific truth - and so convince people who hold so tightly on their worldview - but to do as it has always done, serve those in the know - and who focus on the use.

I will close here the discussion.

More effort is spent on dismissing attacks than on constructive exchange. I must confess I expected more open-mindness from people who gather in the name of science.

My bottom message is no different than what I have stated first.

Not everything is meant to be understood in the scientific perspective - my intention was not to convince, prove or disprove, but to answer the initial question of this thread.

Best to you.
  • 0

#70 Phi for All

Phi for All

    Chief Executive Offworlder

  • Moderators
  • 12,541 posts
  • LocationCO, USA

Posted 16 December 2009 - 09:32 PM

Proof or stfu is basically what it comes down to.

There is absolutely no need to discard diplomacy or common courtesy, regardless of how you feel about a person's claims. You only lend merit to claims of persecution when you attack with this attitude, and weaken the logical stance of your peers.
  • 0

#71 Mr Skeptic

Mr Skeptic

    iDon't-Believe-You

  • Moderators
  • 8,309 posts
  • LocationDunkirk, NY

Posted 16 December 2009 - 11:59 PM

I must confess I expected more open-mindness from people who gather in the name of science.


We are more open-minded than you. We are willing to entertain the possibility that you are right (hence we ask for peer reviewed studies rather than just laughing at you), whereas you are completely unable to accept that you may be wrong. But, we do not discard things we know based on things someone suspects. Whereas you hold on to what you suspect, in the face of what others know.
  • 0
Our voting system is broken! It nearly guarantees that we will have only two political parties that have any chance of winning, and that they will be very similar.

#72 toastywombel

toastywombel

    Molecule

  • Senior Members
  • 735 posts

Posted 17 December 2009 - 03:45 AM

We are more open-minded than you. We are willing to entertain the possibility that you are right (hence we ask for peer reviewed studies rather than just laughing at you), whereas you are completely unable to accept that you may be wrong. But, we do not discard things we know based on things someone suspects. Whereas you hold on to what you suspect, in the face of what others know.


I second that.
  • 0
Being right is overrated.

#73 iNow

iNow

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 14,734 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 17 December 2009 - 04:09 AM

I suppose it's time to share this again.


T69TOuqaqXI
  • 0

#74 Saint Germain

Saint Germain

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 17 December 2009 - 09:58 AM

Thanks for the video, it's an interesting perspective, but still rooted in the context of an objective reality which existence is independent of all subjectivity (which modern physics has shown to be valid in a limited context only) - and therefore assumes the predominance of reasoning and logic - which also have their limitations, as the Gödel's theorem has demonstrated.

The Incompleteness Theorem of Kurt Gödel:

-A logical system is always based on axioms.
-A logical system can not prove the consistency of its own axioms and can - hence not prove whether itself is true.
-No logical system will ever be able to prove everything.
-Truth can not be reached by logic.
-Truth is singular (Truth is One).

I ask you to consider the fact that Mathematics and Logic cannot be proven by themselves. They are tools used in the scientific method. Science presumes them to be true and has not proven them to be true. If one were to take away mathematics and logic, they would be unable to prove them without using logic.

In a similar manner, string theory is purely theoretical, and has never been proven whatsoever, yet it is considered as a scientific discipline.

The video also suggests the existence of "supernatural" phenomena - which is a perspective I don't share. To me, "supernatural" only means that something is not understood in the present scientific context, which again evolves through time.

Nevertheless, the video rightfully points out that judging too quickly, and calling things "scam" or "obvious flaws" can only point out to conclusions rooted in ignorance - not the scientific open-mindedness that some claim to follow.

At best, if something remains unexplained, it is just that, unexplained - this is not a reason to dismiss its existence. To claim otherwise is scientism, not science. As psychologist Charles Tart has noticed, scientism, from a psychological point of view is a form of belief.


Again, and I will state this for the last time - the white powder is not meant to be understood (or used) in the scientific context. It is not meant to shine as a scientific truth, to convince the masses, or to be imposed. No one is asking you to believe anything, so stop acting like it is the case.

This answer was to help the initial question, not to feed the "peer-reviewing hungry people" who, from what I have read, are more interested in a crusade to fight things they don't understand (mostly, outside materialism) than to follow a humble curiosity to try to understand a subject.

All the best to you.

Edited by Saint Germain, 17 December 2009 - 12:07 PM.

  • 0

#75 Sisyphus

Sisyphus

    Trickster Archetype

  • Moderators
  • 6,212 posts
  • LocationNew York City

Posted 17 December 2009 - 02:28 PM

You're asserting something is true. If you're not "asking anyone to believe anything," then what is the purpose of the assertion? And how is asking for an explanation or any kind of evidence "trying to fight something you don't understand?" I think people here have shown themselves to be extremely open-minded, but you've treated even the questioning of it as some kind of religiously motivated persecution. What is that you want from people here?
  • 0
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

#76 Saint Germain

Saint Germain

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 17 December 2009 - 03:14 PM

You're asserting something is true. If you're not "asking anyone to believe anything," then what is the purpose of the assertion? And how is asking for an explanation or any kind of evidence "trying to fight something you don't understand?" I think people here have shown themselves to be extremely open-minded, but you've treated even the questioning of it as some kind of religiously motivated persecution. What is that you want from people here?


I do not assert something is true - I share my experience, which is very different (cfr Gödel's theorem above).

The purpose is, as stated many times, to answer the original question with something more detailed than "everyone knows it is a scam".

I agree, some sincerely ask with an open mind, but most of the energy is spent in attacking and defending beliefs because "it must be impossible".

you've treated even the questioning of it as some kind of religiously motivated persecution. What is that you want from people here?


I think I have detailed my answers with sufficient argumentation, cited scientific sources and theories in answers to dry attacks - where do you feel I have "treated even the questioning of it as some kind of religiously motivated persecution"?

It seems it goes the other way around, the "prove it otherwise it's not true" mentality is a dogma that many seem to buy into here, and so this discussion seemed to have accepted cheap judgements.

What is that you want from people here?


I want nothing but help someone who asked a question.

Different things are true in different contexts, and I happen to work in a different worldview than materialism. A worldview in which rationality and critical thinking work together with intuition, and I happen to not agree with most of the judgements.

Of course, when someone shows up with a different opinion, it is perceived as "trying to convince", "advocate" or anything else - and must be defeated.

Cheers for science!
  • 0

#77 Sisyphus

Sisyphus

    Trickster Archetype

  • Moderators
  • 6,212 posts
  • LocationNew York City

Posted 17 December 2009 - 04:09 PM

I do not assert something is true - I share my experience, which is very different


You assert that your experiences occured as you describe them. Which happens to be an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims are not problematic in themselves, but unsupported ones are.

The support you claim to offer is not really that. You're citing godel's incompleteness theorem and vague allusions to quantum mechanics. Incorrectly, as it happens, but they're red herrings anyway, and totally separate discussions (which you're perfectly welcome to start in their own threads). Anyway, your assertion seems to be that these are examples of proofs that, essentially, nothing is knowable. While this is valid in a broad philosophical sense (though not for the reasons you give) under certain definitions of "knowable," it's really just a deflection from any actual discussion. I could just as easily assert that I am the Norse god Odin, and when challenged on my extraordinary claim just say you can't "prove" I'm not because your first axioms are unsupported. Alright. Agree to disagree...?

The point is that the number of potential extraordinary claims is infinite. It is not out of dogmatism that one rejects those with no support whatsoever, but simple practicality. It is literally impossible to accept everything.

But getting back to the support you claim to draw from modern physics - this makes no sense. You're talking about science. Is science bound by dogmatic "materialism" that seeks to invalidate everything not already understood, or does science show that dogmatism to be false? You can't have it both ways.

It seems it goes the other way around, the "prove it otherwise it's not true" mentality is a dogma that many seem to buy into here, and so this discussion seemed to have accepted cheap judgements.


You don't have to prove it. People are just asking for any support.
  • 0
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

#78 Saint Germain

Saint Germain

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 17 December 2009 - 04:40 PM

You assert that your experiences occured as you describe them. Which happens to be an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims are not problematic in themselves, but unsupported ones are.


Yes, I assert this has been tested, and I gave links to references (see below) - and I agree it is an extraordinary claim.

The support you claim to offer is not really that. You're citing godel's incompleteness theorem and vague allusions to quantum mechanics. Incorrectly, as it happens, but they're red herrings anyway, and totally separate discussions (which you're perfectly welcome to start in their own threads). Anyway, your assertion seems to be that these are examples of proofs that, essentially, nothing is knowable. While this is valid in a broad philosophical sense (though not for the reasons you give) under certain definitions of "knowable," it's really just a deflection from any actual discussion. I could just as easily assert that I am the Norse god Odin, and when challenged on my extraordinary claim just say you can't "prove" I'm not because your first axioms are unsupported. Alright. Agree to disagree...?


Quantum Theory & Relativity have shown us the need to think of reality as relative to an observer - not as absolute. Goedel's theorem was offered to bring into awareness the limits of logic and rationality. The three of them were an answer to the video about open-mindedness - not to the claims made about the powder.

Agreed that you could assert that you are Odin, with no possibility to prove it, and why would one care? If someone asked, then you could come help with your perspective (which is the case here).

The point is that the number of potential extraordinary claims is infinite. It is not out of dogmatism that one rejects those with no support whatsoever, but simple practicality. It is literally impossible to accept everything.


Rejecting something because not proven is what scientism is (=a belief).

When meeting a claim, why restrict your possibilities to either accept or reject? You could as well stand back and decide that you do not have sufficient information to draw a conclusion, therefore not loosing curiosity for a quick judgement.

But getting back to the support you claim to draw from modern physics - this makes no sense.


Again, I gave no support with "modern physics" - I gave info about spectroscopic and thermogravimetric measurements.

I have even stated that it is not to be understood within a scientific context.

You're talking about science. Is science bound by dogmatic "materialism" that seeks to invalidate everything not already understood, or does science show that dogmatism to be false? You can't have it both ways.


To me, science is a way to progressively discover and understand our world - science has to accommodate to Nature, not make Nature accommodate to the current scientific model. Therefore, it is not to be considered as a measure of truth, but a useful tool that allows us to understand (not reject).

And yes, today's science has rendered materialism obsolete.

You don't have to prove it. People are just asking for any support.


It has been given here.

Ok, you deserve something.
Here you have both a video that contains many references to such studies - among which a spectroscopy study performed at Cornell University.

http://www.treasurea...s-exotic-nature

And here some text presenting other results (also this Cornell study).
http://www.levity.co...my/hudson2.html


Here's an additional link that you might find useful

Edited by Saint Germain, 17 December 2009 - 04:58 PM.

  • 0

#79 iNow

iNow

    SuperNerd

  • Senior Members
  • 14,734 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 17 December 2009 - 05:52 PM

The video also suggests the existence of "supernatural" phenomena -

No, actually... It does no such thing. I am forced to question your comprehension and understanding based on you making such a profoundly inaccurate comment.
  • 0

#80 Saint Germain

Saint Germain

    Quark

  • Senior Members
  • 37 posts

Posted 17 December 2009 - 06:04 PM

No, actually... It does no such thing. I am forced to question your comprehension and understanding based on you making such a profoundly inaccurate comment.


Yeah, sorry, this wasn't the best way to put it (English isn't my mother language).

The actual context of this quote is:

The video also suggests the existence of "supernatural" phenomena - which is a perspective I don't share. To me, "supernatural" only means that something is not understood in the present scientific context, which again evolves through time.

What I meant to say is that the video labels phenomena that have no explanation for as supernatural.

I expressed my suggestion that supernatural is only not understood in the present scientific context, that they are an aspect of nature that remains unknown or misunderstood.

I was in no way saying that the video gives any support to supernatural phenomena.

But you can still question my comprehension and understanding, that's ok :-)
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users