Saint Germain

It seems you are mistaking the phenomena for the theory. Here is roughly how the scientific method works: 1. You observe and describe a phenomenon. 2. You create an hypothesis to explain your observation. 3. You use the hypothesis to predict other phenomena - or results of new observations. 4. You experiment to prove/disprove the generalization. Now if you do observe the phenomena (which is being made by peer-reviewed studies) - you have to suggest an hypothesis to explain. For example, we all agree gravity exists. Now Newton has suggested that it was because masses attracted each-other. Einstein suggested that it was due to space-time curvature... Same phenomenon, different theories (linked together though - you can find that Newton's theory is a special case of Einstein's). No offense was intended. I was just pointing out that "the obvious physical flaws of telepathy" is the expression of a belief that unnecessarily discredits genuine scientific studies done though years of hard work were not coming from an educated opinion. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Again, how educated is this judgement? It's easy to call something a scam - where does it come from? Scrupulously forged opinion or a mere impression? Second, I am not advocating for something, I am just offering my perspective - this has now been stated more than three times in my posts. Also, let me repeat that I do not intend to convince or prove. I am answering, from an educated perspective, the question of someone who has shown interest in a domain.

Ok, Wikipedia and your the conclusions of your basic understanding seem enough for you to prove that many studies are flaws??? Mmmh, it seems to me that someone is defending a belief, not facing the facts... More seriously An example could be studies from Prof Joseph Banks Rhine and his colleagues Duke University. Someone stands before 25 different cards shuffled - and then "send" the symbol to someone - results are high above chance levels. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged True. I have fun with people defending an obsolete mechanistic worldview - totally unworkable in the present level of science, but so deeply rooted in our minds, refusing to face the facts and trying to defend a belief... Where were we? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged By "such studies" I meant peer-reviewed. I think one is in trouble when he lets others do the thinking... I have profound respect for peer-reviewing - I just don't think the majority is always right.

Thanks for the link. There are just a few criteria and a list with Institute of Noetic Sciences - I see no actual critics addressed to IONS in specific. When one looks at the criteria, the first one is interesting: 1. Are its ideas inside the scientific mainstream? - the very definition of cutting edge science is to be outside the mainstream I see no real credible review, just suspicions. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I have Dean Radin's book "The Conscious Universe" here with me, filled with such studies. What would satisfy you? Would perception through time be suitable?

Now this is interesting. This domain is now well-documented, and even the major skeptics have reviewed the results and acknowledge that something unusual is going on. All that is left is ignorant-skeptics, with arguments such as "obvious flaws of telepathy". Where did you get that from? All that can be done today is speculations - to my knowledge, o such nonsense is being spoken about by Dean Radin. This is exactly my point. Peer review is just a tool used by science to progress. If it were the measure of truth, no advancement could be done because the majority would permanently stand on its position. Less than credible if you go for the uneducated majority, but guess what happens if you look at the facts and studies?

As explained several times above, I do not intend to defend anything, I simply offer my perspective. Also, I answered to this question: I was wondering if anyone knows about white powder gold(monoatomic gold) or any other M-state elements. - which is exactly what I am doing. It seems this company is talking about something else. You can find anything and its opposite. I bet you can find articles about Elvis being alive and singing in Las Vegas as well... When does he claimed to have discovered this? Pretty much all sources dealing with white powder gold acknowledge David Hudson as being the great (re)discovered of this material.

What is a non-natural phenomena? You here share the method - not an actual experiment set-up. In our case, what type of prediction would you be making? I can give you references. Here you hit the bull's eye, one of the greatest benefit of experimental replication is giving a cutting edge scientist the assurance that he/she isn't self-deluded by showing that results are not flawed. 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

My apologies, I must have misunderstood you. I agree with this mindset loving the unknown, but the shortcut to the research is too fast in my opinion. A good example of this is psy phenomena. Dean Radin is doing a tremendous job in providing evidences of phenomena like clairvoyance, influence of REG (random event generators) with intention, telepathy, and many such phenomena - yet he had to go to a private institute to do his research since no money is being granted to do the research. Otherwise, let me share one of my favorite quote about the open-mindset: "Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and whatever abysses nature leads, or you will learn nothing." - Thomas Henry Huxley

I agree that the unknown can be used for deceit, it has been, currently is, and most probably will be. I'm not sure it is a justification repel other suggestions with an attacking attitude, especially from scientific people, who often consider themselves as educated.

My dear Mr Skeptic, You seem to have a very idealized view of science... Actually, I think scientists have two major types of behaviors when facing "things that behave strangely". The large majority purely and simply rejects it because it doesn't fit their understanding. They treat the thing as not possible before proven otherwise, they feel threatened by the unknown and have a very attacking attitude, and seem on a crusade to preserve their current worldview (which is often hard materialism). Only a small group of scientists actually have an open-minded attitude and consider the phenomena - these are the geniuses who help humanity make giant leaps. Now, I could give you something from a major US university - but I'm not sure you even know why you are asking for these studies. So, give me your view on these questions, and I will give you something: 1. What do you mean by "peer-reviewed" study? People looking at other people's measurements? Stand-alone measurements are not peer-reviewed, scientific papers offering some kind of theory or hypothesis are. Do you understand what the process of peer-reviewing entails? 2. Then the two same questions as for Phi for all. How do you suggest to set up a thorough study of the powder using the scientific method? What would be the purpose of having it published and peer-reviewed? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm curious, why are you asking for scientific studies if you know it is "hooey"? Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption of scientism. Let me remind you that I seek not to prove or convince, but inform on the very first question asked.

Yes - it has happened that people with multiple personalities had had one personality with let's say blue eyes, and the other with green eyes. (Don't know the actual colors - the point being the colors were different).

The word "secret" here isn't meant in the sense "needs to be kept away from others" - it is more like a realization that comes to you when your consciousness is ready. The very idea of such an exotic material is so beyond what the average scientist has been trained to think and believe that it is automatically rejected as "nonsense". And it IS nonsense, yet this is how it is. As stated, I don't seek acceptance from the scientific community at all. This stuff doesn't fit in today's scientific framework, and science will need to go a long way to integrate this, if it ever can. Nevertheless, Alchemy is a precise science (please don't choke) in the sense that it is repeatable by anyone (obviously, since I have followed my teacher's method and have produced the Stone myself), and it works every time. Now can the process be understood and explained within the current scientific understanding? Certainly not, and it might never be fully explained by science. And if you think that the nature of the powder is weird, let me assure you that its creation violates the very foundation of physics - but I will not disclose more about this publicly. As an Engineer, I am pleased to see that tests have been performed, that the powder has been studied with various scientific equipments and methods. But as an Engineer, I am also well aware of the limits of science. Not everything can be fully grasped within the scientific perspective, especially the way science has been defined since Descartes, Newton, and all these mighty figures: as an objective reality made of dry impersonal matter. As an Alchemist, I am pleased that these tests confirm that the substance is exotic - but I know the real value is in its use, not its study. Your question is very natural from a scientific logic. Now let me ask you: how do you suggest to set up a thorough study of the powder using the scientific method? What would be the purpose of having it published and peer reviewed? Let me remind you that it HAS been analyzed and the studies tell us "what you are looking at will laugh at you - I will show up as different matters, change weight". People have performed these scientific studies and have arrived at a point where they throw up their hands in despair, saying they cannot account for what they see. Science likes to put thing in boxes of knowledge. Many scientists actually believe that by studying, observing and measuring something, you can actually know what it is. You may know a bit ABOUT something, but you don't know what it is. Now you may not like what I will write next, and I do not know to what degree you are educated in the nature of reality (beyond the mechanical understanding), but this is the truth. The Stone has been sought for years, many have invested fortunes, have risked their lives to uncover the secrets of Alchemy. Why do you think it is so? Because when used in the alchemical context, it is magnificent gift that allows one to accomplish miracles. The Stone isn't to be understood as matter that you can use to build stuff. The Stone reacts to consciousness - and is to be used within a spiritual context. This is the context of Alchemy as it was used in former civilizations, and as it is used today. I understand if people refuse to integrate this in their worldview, reject this, call this view crackpot, or any other funky names. I know I would have done so a few years earlier. Now again, we are outside of the scientific domain - no one is asking you to believe anything - I am just sharing my perspective.

Dear travis418 and all the contributors of this discussion. Please know that I have an engineering degree, so I consider this as an educated answer. I've worked with Alchemy for quite some time now, and I feel compelled to answer your questions from the perspective of my own experience with Alchemy (not from speculation). I understand this discussion might be controversial to many, since we are on a science forum. Please understand that science offers simply a model of reality as currently perceived, true scientists know our understanding evolved over time. Their attitude is of humble curiosity and they are rarely infected by the illusion that they know it all, and by the arrogance that comes with it. I seek not to convince anyone, especially the many "know it all" that are probably deeply rooted in classical materialism - I seek to answer those who genuinely want to know. My experience comes from being taught Alchemy by those guys www.treasurealchemy.com First of all, the monoatomic/ORMUS/ORMEs/m-state people claim (and genuinely believe) they are dealing with alchemy, they are not. This is just baby stuff. If you investigate this domain long enough, like I did, you will reach the true product of Alchemy which is a mysterious white powder that has been called the Philosopher's Stone. This is what is described in ancient texts from all traditions. It was called Mana in the Jewish tradition, Mfkzt in ancient Egypt, Shem-an-na in ancient Babylon. One can also find the following names: The Elixir of Life – Star Fire – The food of the gods – the Philosopher Stone. This powder is real, tangible, the method of production is known (I am using it) - and you can read a bit of my journey here: http://www.realphilosopherstone.com/ Now, how can one understand this powder from a scientific perspective? Here is a letter written by my teachers a while ago. It is available nowhere else, and it will help you understand this wacky world. I have adapted the text a bit with links to reference sites so that you can verify some claims. Letter: Neither Hudson, nor anybody else we know did understand really what was happening. Chemistry deluded them. If you are totally rooted in classical chemistry and physics, your eyes will se what you believe in, you will find proof for that in analytical results, and you will not think “beyond”. You have to accept that there might be something else or something more to see that something. We have a close friend in the US with firm chemical, physical and biological academic background who made analyses of the powder. The analyses gave quite similar results as Hudson’s, but a different method was used. But: Hudson says, this white powder consists of monoatomic transient elements. The spectroscopic method he used is based on heating the powder for a relatively long time on a graphite electrode and then assaying it. Then it assays as these elements. Nobody ever proved that they are really monoatomic. It is just a speculation, and has been shown to be incorrect see here. Hudson thought his white powder WAS a monoatomic transient metal mixture when he put it onto the electrode. It was not!! When this powder meets graphite on high temperature and long enough time, it TURNS into these transient elements. White powder IS NOT a transient metal mixture, it TURNS to that in certain circumstances! 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. So it turned out, that our powder transforms into a mixture of NEW elements when heating under such conditions. As you most certainly know, SiO2 cannot be altered into any other element without extremely large energy input, requiring energy levels of an atomic reactor. When you have to jiggle electrons, protons, neutrons, you need those energy levels. Now in our case with some graphite and heat for some time, the miracle happens. So as a conclusive remark, we should add that this SiO2 is a very peculiar one, because such changes are impossible according to the present chemical and physical knowledge. The carbon energy reduction might be what actually happens to the ingested powder in the body. The human body is some kind of an alchemical crucible. It can “use” this powder. We think something very similar is happening in our bodies but unfortunately scientifically it cannot be checked yet. However, judging subjectively from the resultant robust health and very high energy levels, the changes are tremendously beneficial. If or when you are “ready”, it will come to you. You cannot search for it. You can only find it. Or does it find you? Maybe. The only one real personal report on the Internet about the effect of wpg was an interview with an unidentified man from Hudson’s group. It is rather dim or misty when you read it and you don’t understand what he says and why he says it so. Now we know. Our whole experience-mass is so “otherworldly” in a way that it is almost incommunicable. Moreover, when you put the powder into a Faraday cage, you can feel its Meisner field. We tried several methods to utilize its power. You can put it into a metal pendant and wear it in your neck, for example. It has a profound effect even this way, just by constantly interacting with the aura of the body. There was a thermogravimetric analysis done with our powder. First, it was attempted under helium atmosphere. The powder was taken and put on a precise scale and heated up to ca. 1000 degrees Centigarde. The assay had to be terminated about halfway, because the powder behaved in a very unusual way. It's weight was jumping up and down and making the equipment and the personnel go mental. Then the next measurement was done in nitrogen atmosphere. Here the powder was calm. From 100 up to 800 degrees C, it was loosing its weight gradually and at ca. 800 it stabilised having lost 25% of its original weight. Up to 1100 degrees it did not change any more. When it cooled, its weight remained minus 25%. Later in the letter, they wrote: Now we can make healing powders designed exactly for a sick person to heal him/her. And it works. The only exception might be when the soul does really want to quit... The question on how healing occurs is discussed here: http://www.treasurealchemy.com/1-creations-and-effects-of-achemy - it is discussed around 13 minutes 30 sec. If you have questions, ask and I will do my best to answer you. All the best to you.