Saint Germain

True, but you have to understand that some people are “true believers” whose purpose is to “spread the word” which is what the grand master is trying to do.

No, I am answering the initial question. If I wanted to convince you, I'd publish results of studies, but this is not my prerogative.

The phenomenon is quite well known but is not understood by many people. The claimed use of some thermographic analyzer is misleading. The only scientific instrument used was an analytical balance.

I wouldn't be so sure that it's only misinterpretations, and that the only scientific instrument used was an analytical balance.

The original story is this: Some white powder (now called the “white powder of gold”) was collected from the carbons and splatter shield of an older type emission spectrograph which was used for detection of elements in “ghost gold”. This white powder was weighed and then heated. When the sample was hot it was weighed again and it was determined that the powder “lost weight”. After the hot sample was removed from the balance pan, they also observed that some of this magic ormus had been transferred to the balance pan causing it to levitate also. This led Hudson and his incompetent chemist to conclude that they were dealing with a superconductor and a monopole because the weight loss was attributed to repulsion of the earth’s magnetic field. From this experiment they then came to the conclusion that the building blocks of the Great Pyramid were levitated into place using this “white powder of gold”. It didn’t take much after that to also conclude that they were now dealing with anti-gravity and ancient spaceships.

 

The explanation is that when a sample is weighed it must be at the ambient temperature of the balance. A sample that is warmer than then balance will cause lift on the pan due to convection currents and will appear to have “lost weight” and levitate. Samples colder than the balance pan (whether or not they were cooled in an inert atmosphere) will appear to “gain weight” because the surrounding air is denser.

 

Some people sure can jump to a lot of conclusions from “weighing error”.

The facts and interpretation are a bit distorted.

Especially with the "incompetent chemist", and the direct link with the pyramids - very well put, and I'm sure it will give a good laugh to the "oh come on, this is crap, everyone knows this, because if it were true, everyone would know about it" people, those who trust that the majority is right and well-informed.

Many years have passed since Hudson, and many more studies have been performed. I know for a fact that the people at www.treasurealchemy.com will publish something in the near future, including results of spectrography analysis (I think this is a first time studies of this type will be published).

If it really did exist then it would be more widely known about. put up some evidence or get the hell out of here.

You're right, this discussion has lasted long enough, we're going in loops of repetition.

All the best to all of you, have a great holiday time with your loved ones.

For the last time,

Saint Germain.

I was wondering how the ancient Egyptians could have figured this out thousands of years ago without a TGA analyzor.

We have to separate the analysis from the use.

We know pretty much all traditions had knowledge about this powder, its use and its effects of humans. It doesn't mean they knew all the results of all the measurements that can be performed on it. One does not need to have measurements to engage in the use.

Wouldn't it be possible just to heat or cool the white powder of gold and show the gain or loss of weight? If the white powder of gold looses weight when heated it should require further investigations to determine why the material levitates.

Yes, you could do that, but it gives you only relations for specific weight relative to the temperatures.

With TGA - you get the evolution of the weight when the temperature changes.

And besides this, I don't know about the levitation of the powder - I have not personally witnessed it, or heard such a thing from someone I know. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, but I can't give you comments of this from my experience.

I thought it was claimed that one of the amazing properties of Mfkzt aka "white powder of gold" was its ability to loose weight when heated.

Yes, this has been measured with TGA (thermogravimetric analysis).

Honestly, everything they claimed is one big brown pile,

I'm glad that you also trust how perfect and complete your worldview is to be able to call things "big brown pile" with such certitude.

and you mentioned it had gone invisible?

No, did not mention that.

The energy to "make it go to a different dimension." would require impossible amounts of energy.

I'm actually curious about this, how can you calculate this required energy? (really)

Merged post follows:

I was quoting you. You said absolute.

Mistake from me then - I probably meant "absolute time and absolute space"

I agree, these are a different issue than relativity. But collapsing a wave function because of experimental observation is not the same as different versions of reality — once you have made the measurement/observation, the system is in that state.

Where did I say different versions of reality? Although some serious scientists do support the multiverse theory.

When I mean by subjective is that it is - to a degree - dependent of you (the observer) - not independent. Most scientists agree that it has no sense to separate the observer and the observed.

In other words, observing isn't innocent or passive, it is active.

We can even go further and say that what you think matters - and experiments made from labs such the PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) show a very direct example of this when they clearly demonstrated that intention influenced Random Event Generators working with quantum processes.

They did their research for more than 25 years, and eventually PEAR closed its doors in Feb 2007 "If people do not believe the results already, it's unlikely they ever will. It is time for this work to be continued by a new generation" said the leaders of the program Drs Jahn & Dunne

The real problem here is the attempt to interpret QM in classical terms.

Scientists like David Bohm (originator of the holographic model) - suggests there is a need of a new order - and that we shouldn't try to accommodate Quantum Theory with classical physics (the same way accommodations were made with Ptolemaic epicycles).

This is explained here from an excerpt of the book "wholeness and the implicate order"

No. The contention that there is no such thing as absolute reality. We agree on what happens. We don't agree on when or how far away the event was.

The assertion was about objective reality - not absolute.

Objective being independent of the observer.

I agree with your remark if one uses strictly relativity - in which "what happens" is the same (although this is disputable as sequences of events are not the same) - and what changes is sequence (time), measures (space), and also masses.

It's mainly quantum theory that suggests that reality is - to a certain degree - observer-dependent.

As already suggested:

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'Espagnat

"Observation plays a decisive role in the event and . . . the reality varies, depending upon whether we observe it or not." - Werner Heisenberg

"Every interpretation of quantum mechanics involves consciousness." - Euan Squires

"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again: it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." - Eugene Wigner

"The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them ...is impossible” - Werner Heisenberg

That's the definition of perspective.

Hahaha, true.

Wow, St. Germain you are some piece of work. This should be it for me in this thread unless you say something even more outlandish than the likes of, "Karl Popper doesn't believe in positivist approach."

I must say I don't know about Karl Popper - so I googled "positivism Karl Popper" and this page came out.

This is a page from Trinity College - and it looked reliable.

The same page states: He articulated his own view of science, and his criticisms of the positivists, in his first work, published under the title Logik der Forschung in 1934. The book - which he was later to claim rang the death knell for logical positivism - attracted more attention than Popper had anticipated, and he was invited to lecture in England in 1935.

If you provide another link with another explanation, I will read it, promised.

Furthermore, I doubt you watched the video, but I hope you enjoyed picking out the semantics. I also liked how you totally ignored that Stephen Hawking used the positivist approach in his "Origins of the Universe Lecture".

I did, very interesting.

I could imagine one would feel funny ridiculing a statement and then finding that the statement is from one of the most brilliant philosophers. You must have felt worse when you realised the statement was also cited in one of the most famous lectures of all time by one of the most brilliant minds of our time.

Definition of positivism: A philosophy asserting the primacy of observation in assessing the truth of statements of fact and holding that metaphysical and subjective arguments not based on observable data are meaningless.

I actually feel good about not needing data or proof to deal with the world. I deal a lot with intuition, which also works in the absence of proof or data. Again, positivism is a philosophy, a way of approaching the world to study it - not a scientific truth to convince all. So I don't see why this is a problem at all besides difference of opinion.

Finally, when you said, "If the notions presented to you are too strange for you to accept, there is no problem about that at all, they are strange."

 

You should have used a semi-colon between "all" and "they" at the end of that sentence, or you could formulate them into two separate sentences. However, what you did was a comma-splice. Just thought I would point that out for you.

Yeah, I'm not familiar with English grammar, thank you for pointing this out.

Merged post follows:

Yes, of course that's what I mean. And though the math is slightly more complicated, it's not fundamentally different than "translating" to the perspective of someone standing next to you. There's nothing mysterious about it.

Well, I find it fascinating that things happening in one perspective can be perceived differently in another.

There is a good illustrated example here

Otherwise, yes, the math is complex.

Also, person A and person B will both agree on what person A is experiencing, as long as they both know how relativity works. It's not subjective in that sense.

Not sure they'd agree on what A is experiencing, since the notion of time also changes things like simultaneity - but if they sit down and "translate" one's experience from A to B - they will understand the other's perspective (if it's what you meant by "as long as they know how relativity works").

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

Experience still depends on one's reference point.

The latter two are true, but the first does not follow from that. It is true that simultaneity is not fixed; length and time depend on the observer's reference frame. But if an event happens, it happens in all frames. If two people shoot guns, "who shot first" or whether those shots were simultaneous may depend on the reference frame of the observer. But everyone must agree on whether they hit the target.

I agree.

I'm sorry, but I do not follow what you mean about "the first one" - you mean my friend working in cyclotrons and needing to deal with high speeds, therefore relativity?

Except, some of us actually care when people misrepresent reality. Yeah... we should be ashamed of ourselves.

If the notions presented to you are too strange for you to accept, there is no problem about that at all, they are strange.

If by that you judge that stating that those strange facts are true is misrepresenting reality, are you implying that your view of reality is so perfect that you can tell what is a correct interpretation and what is not?

We cannot ask whether a scientific theory accurately describes the world around us, we can only ask if it works by predicting outcomes accurately.

 

That is the positivist approach by Karl Popper.

It seems this is not the case.

Here: http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/phil/philo/phils/popper.html

Popper was heavily critical of the main tenets of logical positivism, especially of what he considered to be its misplaced focus on the theory of meaning in philosophy and upon verification in scientific methodology. He articulated his own view of science, and his criticisms of the positivists, in his first work, published under the title Logik der Forschung in 1934.

So permit me to drop the rest of your argumentation on this point.

Furthermore, public opinion does not determine what science is. It just does not work that way. Any sound scientist would cringe at that statement.

Actually, science has no clear strict definition.

From wikipedia:

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.

There, we find what you seem to suggest.

In its more restricted contemporary sense, science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

"In its more restricted contemporary sense" - contemporary means "now", implying that it is somewhat different than "before" - the objective is gaining knowledge - no more to predict.

So it seems your opinion that you insist is correct - is no longer valid. So yes, in that sense, if you state that on a public forum, and people believe you, and adopt this definition, what you and many others will think of science is public opinion.

Finally, Documenting something like the unfounded claims by monatomic gold or telepathy is great. Let's just say you are right and in a study of these things there might be strange things that baffle scientists, but if one cannot devise a theory predicting how these things happen then the studies are practically useless.

Telepathy or other so-called "psychic phenomena" are NOT unfounded claims since many studies strongly suggest that they exists. Dean Radin's book "The Conscious Universe" is a presentation of collections of such studies (and be reassured, they have been peer-reviewed).

Then ok, let's say this is true. Why is something useless if no theory to describe it exist? The real value is in its use, not the knowledge (as I have stated many times). I suggested this approach, that it is not to be understood in the context of science (= no theory exists) - but the use is the real goal.

Say, if we studied fire all day: observed how it started, observed how it gave off heat, observed how it spread. If we are unable to find out why fire started and how fire started then the observations are of little use to us. We would simply be watching something we don't understand and just accepting that we don't understand it.

You could still use it.

However, if we did find out how it started, how it spread, how it gave off heat, we can make a hypothesis like, "Fire uses wood to burn." Then we can test that hypothesis, when we do we find out that it is obviously true. We can then make a prediction; to start a fire we would need wood.

The knowledge about how fire starts doesn't burn, doesn't cook, doesn't warm you in the winter. The use of fire does. And there is no need to know the theory for fire to burn, and use its heat.

I agree it is true that the more we know, the better we can use, but it is not necessary to know about to use.

One more thing, don't talk down to me please.

Look, it is clear that our opinions are different - but just because I do not agree with you, and justify my answers doesn't mean that I "talk down on you".

I respect opinions, and I provide justifications to explain why I might not agree with some.

I apologize if you feel that way, but before making such a request, maybe you could check what you write yourself.

Saint Germain, since you seem to have misplaced your logic in the defence of "white powder gold". I will attempt to clear up your misunderstandings.

You sited Dean Radin doing an amazing job by researching telepathy and such. Now I won't completely touch on the obvious physical flaws of telepathy

Merged post follows:

Just so you know, I posted the positivist approach, hoping you would try to take it and formulate it into an argument against me.

First of all, I formulate arguments to illustrate why I tend to not agree with a particular opinion, not to formulate arguments "against you" - there is no need take things personally.

Then, if we take a definition of positivism: A philosophy asserting the primacy of observation in assessing the truth of statements of fact and holding that metaphysical and subjective arguments not based on observable data are meaningless. - it is clear that I do not agree with this philosophy. And it is a philosophy, a point of view, not science. I don't see why we should restrict our understanding to only what can be proven? Now don't get me wrong, it is nice when something can be proved (or disproved) by experiments, it allows knowledge to progress, but in the end, I will not tag something as meaningless because it has no proof.

Without actually looking at the statement you turned it into determinism, which it is not, then formulated an argument against determinism. By doing this you proved that you were more interested in formulating an argument against me than discussing the facts.

Yes, I must confess, this is true.

In my covered attempts to answer a question asked by a member (not even by you) of this forum, in the attempt to know people's opinion about a subject - and who was receiving such detailed and documented answers such as

Honestly? It sound like a load of crap.

This was BS before

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=7869&highlight=ormus

and it's still BS now.

All that I wanted was to formulate arguments against you. You got me.

You want a hug?

(now I'm a bit cheeky ;-) )

More seriously, unlike some here, I do not consider this as a fight that must be resolved with my opinion winning. There is no need to become angry because things are taken personally.

I have offered information - I have spoken about my experience - and if I am firmly grounded in my position, it is because I speak from experience, not speculation.

Ok, why can't we ask of science to make an attempt to describe the nature of the world in the most accurate way possible? Who/what is the authority that can limit science to "predict outcomes accurately", and determine we can and what we cannot ask of science?

There is none, only public opinion of what "science should be" make them act as if they were the authority.

Where does the idea of "science needs to predict" comes from?

It is rooted (again) in determinism - in the clockwork universe, which the idea that if one could know the state of the universe at a given time, one could in principle predict the future and reconstruct the past. This has been a central tenet of science, ever since Laplace's time.

But again, this idea has been obsolete for quite some time (we have been aware of this through scientific and mathematical theories such as quantum theory and chaos theory).

In an often quoted lecture to the Royal Society, on the three hundredth anniversary of Newton’s Principia, Sir James Lighthill even made a collective apology for science having promoted such ideas: ”We are all deeply conscious today that the enthusiasm of our forebears for the marvellous achievements of Newtonian mechanics led them to make generalizations in this area of predictability which, indeed, we may have generally tended to believe before 1960, but which we now recognize were false. We collectively wish to apologize for having misled the general educated public by spreading ideas about determinism of systems satisfying Newton’s laws of motion that, after 1960, were to be proved incorrect.”

And again, this mindset thinks in absolute, true and false, possible and impossible, and so allows the dogmatic attitude to forbid and limit someone in its scientific thinking with ideas such as

We cannot ask whether a scientific theory accurately describes the world around us, we can only ask if it works by predicting outcomes accurately.

No one is to be blamed for thinking this way though, this is not the people's fault. Many of us are still being educated with these old mindsets, I know I have been trained to think this way by my University, and I would still be thinking that if I had not decided to expand my understanding of Nature a bit. It takes time for new ideas to permeate society, especially in the domain of science.

That's not how it works, no. Observation just means interaction with something. You will be able to find some physicists who believe that consciousness has some special role, but that is a minority view.

Actually, there is no consensus on the process of observation.

Some say consciousness collapses the wave-function, you seem to prefer the interpretation that interacting is observing.

I'm not sure you can reduce observation with interaction. Observation to me means interaction and perception of some form of information.

Anyways, quantum physicists tend to agree that observation and observer are inseparable, which is the point I was trying to make.

Yes, durations, distances, and relative velocities are frame dependent. I still don't know what point you're making. It's the same "reality."

Of course it's the same underlying reality - but perceptions are observer-dependent.

So you believe observers are supernatural then? We here are scientists, not bad-science-fiction-scientists. Observers are never humans in the theories you describe.

 

Though this seems to be the basis of the misunderstanding here, it is nevertheless quite off topic so that is all I shall say on that.

On the contrary, observers ARE human.

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'Espagnat

"Observation plays a decisive role in the event and . . . the reality varies, depending upon whether we observe it or not." - Werner Heisenberg

"Every interpretation of quantum mechanics involves consciousness." - Euan Squires

"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again: it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." - Eugene Wigner

No, one cannot speculate that. If there was no satisfactory explanation, that would make it extremely interesting and exactly the sort of thing to write a paper about. My guess is that our non-chemist misunderstood what the spectroscopist said.

Oh, ok, I didn't know there were things on which one can speculate, and things on which one can not

You see, this is what I mean by knowing that things are relative, context-dependent. Different things are true in different contexts, so one can only speak in relative, not absolute.

Of course, in the objective reality world, things are absolute, so they true or not. In this world, speculations can be rejected, and claims can be termed silly - because there is the belief of absolute rightness.

And again, this powder is not meant to become a scientific truth - the desire is to know about the powder, not convince. Here, you have my best guess. Will you allow me to make it?

One more thing, scientists who make a publication attach their credibility with the paper they publish - not so many are ready to put their reputation on the line for such strange phenomena.

Merged post follows:

Cartesian dualism is the idea that mind and body are separate. It is, in fact, specifically not materialistic.

Who said dualism is materialistic?

It is what has originated the idea that Nature could be studied as an absolute, totally independently of the mind.

The "observer effect" wrt quantum physics does not refer specifically to a conscious observer. An electron can be an "observer."

I am not a specialist there, but my understanding is that an electron can be used as a means to make the observation. In the end, the observer is still human.

And I don't even know what point you're trying to make about relativity.

I have a friend who works in cyclotrons - he deals with high speeds, and therefore needs to include relativity.

He has told me that when he works with two different referentials, and needs to make conversions from one system to another, everything is different big time.

The point being that there is no such thing as absolute reality, no absolute time, no absolute space, ...

If you are making a subjective claim, then why do you expect scientists who by definition adhere to objective standards, to care? We can't accept that, not as scientists.

Not with this definition of science - forged in the 1600s, which is based on a hypothetical reality, independent of the "I".

This mindset was initiated by Descartes to allow science to progress free of religious dogma. This was called dualism.

Now, this hypothesis has been revealed as applicable only within a limited domain - and is not the nature of reality.

What has been called the observer effect shows that it has no sense to separate the observation, and the observer - and relativity shows that everything is different when looked from different referentials.

So science is a way to discover nature, but you work differently if you decide to look honestly at Nature, or if you work only within the "objectivity" of the world - since there is now a conflict between the two.

Anyways, what I meant to communicate with this idea is that I respect that one might not be inclined to accept it because it doesn't fit in their perspective, especially with the belief that reality is objective - but in my perspective, it is true. Just like someone might reject the principle of satellites turning around the earth when living with the belief that the earth is flat. The two ideas don't fit together.

Because he is the one who is making these silly claims, not the PhD. Why mention someone who has nothing to do with this? If this was something interesting, why is not the PhD writing a paper about it?

This is true, he is making the claims, and not the PhD guy.

About the paper, I don't know if such a paper has been published for peer-review, as again, it is not meant to shine as a scientific truth.

One can also speculate that results need to be interpreted, and no such satisfactory explanation motivated a paper.

You got it wrong, it is "prove it otherwise we have no reason to believe you".

Again, as I have stated many many times already, I seek not to make you believe something. I am answering the initial question.

Science uses rationality and critical thinking and intuition. Science assumes objectivity and repeatability. Are these the principles you are rejecting?

No, as I have stated before, Alchemy is tangible and repeatable. But of course, you do need to learn it to try, so is not to be considered as an argument.

If so, then you can't expect our reality to be the same as yours, so what would be the purpose of sharing your experiences?

I understand that our perspectives are different - this is why it's interesting to exchange points of view. If everyone had the same opinion, then there would be no need of such a forum.

Otherwise, I tend to adhere to David Bohm's holographic model of reality - which takes into account quantum theory, consciousness, and provides a framework that includes and explains many previously called "supernatural phenomena" - it takes into account the enormous amount of energy contained in the vacuum - it considers a new order, the implicate order - instead of trying to accommodate quantum theory with the macro-world. It explains why Nature shows many self-repeating patterns (the geometry of Nature is one of fractals), and I find it a very elegant way to explain all those phenomena that remain a mystery for classical science (consciousness, entanglement, psychic phenomena, ...).

Well yes, you are making a claim. Why make a claim if you are not trying to convince people it is true? Why not just keep it to yourself?

Because my Dear Mr Skeptic, a question was asked in the first post, and I simply did not agree with the "scam" replies.

You do realize at this point that you are insisting that I am making a claim, and that you keep insisting about that, when I have many times said that it was only my perspective. I have also stated many times that it is not to be understood in the context of science. Not everything can be explained by science.

If you cannot see that you have made a claim, then just look to see if everything you have said is a tautology. Anything that isn't, is a claim.

The holographic model acknowledges that reality isn't objective. If it isn't objective, it is subjective, therefore it depends on one's view of reality.

Therefore, I say that it is my perspective, I do not claim "this is the absolute truth, people, believe what I say". I suggest this from my perspective, in which it is true.

Well that explains it all.

In the process of recovering gold and silver, I began to recover something else, ... I am not a physicist or a chemist and had no idea what the stuff was.

Why not mention that this is quoted from the guy who, because he was not a scientist, hired a PhD from Cornell to perform the analysis?

This is why this discussion goes round and round - there is an aim at debunking by taking quotes outside their context - with (it seems to me) a clear attempt to discredit.

The thing is there is nothing to discredit - I do not try to impose a view, I wanted to answer a gentleman asking a genuine question. I totally understand that this domain is very strange and I expect no one to buy into that stuff merely for intellectual purposes. I know I would have been in your place a few years ago.

If one is curious, he/she will investigate further to build a personal opinion.

But it's already an improvement, someone is replying about the sources. Maybe after reading it with the aim of finding some munition to come back in "debunk mode", someone might actually read the text with curiosity.

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

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.treasurealchemy.com/further-scientific-proofs-of-its-exotic-nature

 

And here some text presenting other results (also this Cornell study).

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/hudson2.html

Here's an additional link that you might find useful

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!

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.

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.

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

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.treasurealchemy.com/further-scientific-proofs-of-its-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:

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.

Is the name Vlad perhaps familiar to you?

 

http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=4700

Not that I know...

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

Why the question?

Again, off topic. By a belief I guess your referring to the belief on how the brain works. Which has much more scientific backing than any study of telepathy. But this is off topic, if you want to start a new thread about how the brain works I would be happy to respond to it.

No, by belief, I am referring to assumptions based upon one version of the mechanics of the brain.

I am not developing a new topic, I am illustrating elements that I have used and that some have attempted to ridicule by playing on belief-based elements such as "the obvious physical flaws of telepathy."

If this is a science forum - let's look at the facts, studies, theories, let's have an open mind and not draw early conclusions - this is my message.