Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Is M-State Alchemy?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,567
    Blog Entries
    4

    Is M-State Alchemy?

    This is a Phoenix-thread from the old site.

    Is the calx of gold alchemy?
    Of course it is.

    Glauber produced a very fine calx of gold by adding salt of tartar to gold chloride solution.
    That is the basic m-state process - adding an alkali to precipitate gold out of solutions of salt waters
    or gold chloride solution.

    So to say that m-state is nothing to do with alchemy is to say that calx of gold has no part in alchemy.
    And I can refer you to many texts which speak of calx of gold as "our gold".
    But I'm not going to, because if you're not aware of this you have no real ground to have
    a valued opinion on what is or isn't alchemy.

    The whole idea or question of what is or isn't alchemy only reflects
    the narrowness of one's own mind.
    Jerry isn't talking about alchemy. He's talking about what he accepts/believes as alchemy.

    There is no one here who has exhausted alchemy in order to have a final opinion about it.

    But those who have final opinions without walking the entire path tell us something about themselves.
    Those who accept others opinions without doing the work tell us something about themselves.

    Hudson is a respected authority in his arena, as is McLean in his.
    They needn't contradict or oppose one another.
    It is your mind that needs to invent/see the opposition.
    The divided mind sees division everywhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by BeautifulEvil
    The divided mind sees division everywhere.
    Aye, and the united mind sees unity everywhere. I've been trying to decide who would be the first to start a thread like this one. Looks like Solomon Levi takes the prize!

    -------

    We have two questions we need to discuss before we're able to answer this question. 1) What is m-state? 2) What is alchemy?

    The second question is much more difficult, because it tends to have personal connotations. However, if we're able to answer the first question, and we decide that these so called 'ORMES' do not exist, then our original question becomes void. Experimental confirmation is the best way to answer number one. I propose we design an experiment in which we're able to test whether or not gold m-state can actually enhance the growth of plants. It seems pretty simple. Makes a calx of gold via the gold chloride + alkali method. Isolate the precipitate, and wash a few times with distilled water. There's your m-state gold. Use Dead Sea salt precipitate (presumed to be mostly gold m-state) as your other test subject. Buy some seeds/plants from the store, and then design three groups. 1) Those fed with pure gold calx (m-state). 2) Those fed with Dead Sea salt precipitate. 3) Those fed with regular distilled water (no fertilizers).

    Run the test a few times, tally up the totals, analyze the data, and then report back. We'll be able to settle this mystery. If the plant group from test subject one (gold calx) doesn't grow as vigorously as the plant group from number two (Dead Sea salt) then we must figure out why the Dead Sea salt precipitate exhibited these symptoms. If plant group one and plant group two both show vigorous growth in comparison to plant group three then we can arrive at an interesting conclusion. If plant group one and plant group three both lack in growth then we must consider the composition and mechanism behind the growth of plant group two.

    Sometimes I feel like a mad scientist.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xcalibur254
    Just a quick question since I'm new to alchemy. What exactly is m-state? I see it mentioned in a ton of topics but don't actually know what it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by deviadah
    It is just another word for monatomic state!
    In physics and chemistry, monatomic is a combination of the words "mono" and "atomic," and means "single atom". - source
    The white powder is comprised of a group of elements in a monatomic state. Hudson calls them "ORMES" for "Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements." This is a new form (phase) of matter with entirely different physical properties from normal elements. Conventional chemistry texts have been of little value in explaining ORMEs. Several scientists have started studies of such matter although, to the author's knowledge, none has yet developed a satisfactory theory explaining the phenomena. To date, Hudson's discoveries have neither been conclusively confirmed nor rebutted by independent investigators. - source
    Essay: Monatomic Elements (ORMES)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    You don't come every day across such claims like magnetic Au, stimulated plant growth, etc.. with photos and videos.

    Its nice to have a garden, maybe you could try some experiments with "m-state" and help us solve the mystery.
    You're right, it is not everyday I come across such en-ormus claims. Dancing bears and flashing lights called Alchemy is not. You have still yet to show any concordance or agreement of the classic alchemical literature with anything you have provided.

    If you want to solve the “mystery”, we should really start at the beginning and explain to us how David Hudson came to the conclusion he could get 600 ounces per ton of Iridium from his analysis of the ore sample.
    Quote Originally Posted by theFool
    You're right, it is not everyday I come across such en-ormus claims. Dancing bears and flashing lights called Alchemy is not.
    I don't see why I should give more credit to the old books which have a concealed language and not at least the same to a patent that uses modern scientific words.
    You have still yet to show any concordance or agreement of the classic alchemical literature with anything you have provided.
    I could post some texts refering to the calx of gold but I don't think this would help the conversation. I don't care if it is in accordance with "classic alchemical literature". My view of alchemy is not limited only to classic books.
    If you want to solve the “mystery”, we should really start at the beginning and explain to us how David Hudson came to the conclusion he could get 600 ounces per ton of Iridium from his analysis of the ore sample.
    I have no opinion on the matter due to lack of related knowledge.
    Quote Originally Posted by phliosehea
    I don't see why I should give more credit to the old books which have a concealed language and not at least the same to a patent that uses modern scientific words.
    Considering they (old books) are the source material that Hudson (et all) have drawn from, are applying their theory to, and have proliferated as alchemical - then that would be why tying the two together is valid. Even though the language is "concealed" there are certain notions which reoccur enough (and within reasonable understanding) that the correlation between the two (alchemy/ormes) sometimes appears rather thin (to me personally) . Hudson's theories are interesting, but I believe the tether to alchemy was more of a marketing ploy...and I always found it suspicious that he would never ingest any of his wares himself...even after the guinea pigs had their share. Either way, this is too much of an semantic battle and the above is just my opinion.
    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    You don't come every day across such claims like magnetic Au, stimulated plant growth, etc.. with photos and videos.

    Its nice to have a garden, maybe you could try some experiments with "m-state" and help us solve the mystery.
    You're right, it is not everyday I come across such en-ormus claims. Dancing bears and flashing lights called Alchemy is not. You have still yet to show any concordance or agreement of the classic alchemical literature with anything you have provided.

    If you want to solve the “mystery”, we should really start at the beginning and explain to us how David Hudson came to the conclusion he could get 600 ounces per ton of Iridium from his analysis of the ore sample.

    You said it has nothing to do with alchemy.
    I am arguing that, not that everything Hudson said is true.
    If the a process used by a popular alchemist (Glauber) produces the same
    result as one used by those working in what they claim to be m-state,
    then I have proven m-state has to do with alchemy.

    Did you even know that it is synonymous with calx of gold before you rejected it?

    My real purpose is to prevent one closed mind from closing others.
    You close the door when m-state hasn't been disproven.
    That's not scientific.
    And it's obvious you haven't even read or seen Hudson's lectures to know to
    what extent he went to prove his material.

    Asking someone else to prove something...
    why don't you disprove it if you're so adamant against it?
    Reading and believing McLean's conclusions doesn't prove anything.

    What is your proof that m-state isn't alchemy?
    Is it more scientific than mine?
    You say it isn't in the classical literature, but how would you know?
    Do you know what the first matter is?
    Do you know m-state metals isn't the predecesor of metals?
    Are you saying no old alchemical texts refer to a white powder of gold?

    You're just wrong here.
    Just admit your judgements are premature and not scientifically supported.
    You basically already have by saying you've taken McLean's word for the truth.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,567
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    You're right, it is not everyday I come across such en-ormus claims. Dancing bears and flashing lights called Alchemy is not. You have still yet to show any concordance or agreement of the classic alchemical literature with anything you have provided.
    Like I said, if you're not aware of the numerous texts that refer to calx of gold, you're in no position
    to declare what is or isn't alchemy.
    Quote Originally Posted by theFool
    I don't see why I should give more credit to the old books which have a concealed language and not at least the same to a patent that uses modern scientific words.
    Considering they (old books) are the source material that Hudson (et all) have drawn from, are applying their theory to, and have proliferated as alchemical - then that would be why tying the two together is valid.
    I didn't mean here to devaluate a tradition that survives for eons. My perspective when writing this was the following: Imagine I have a scientific background and never heard about alchemy or m-state theories. When I come across them, I am drawn naturally towards the Hudson patent. The language is logical and understandable and I can try experiments to verify it myself. I admit, I have no alchemical background. However, it would be very nice also, to find accordances between m-state theory and alchemical texts because, this would strengthen both alchemy and m-state theory.
    Hudson's theories are interesting, but I believe the tether to alchemy was more of a marketing ploy
    I think also that where money gets involved a lot af lies and exagerrations are told. But I don't know much about how he discovered it or how he made the theory. My main reference is his patent only.
    Quote Originally Posted by theFool
    Philalethes states it clear:
    The Stone you seek, we said and still affirm is only gold, brought to so high perfection as it is possible, which though a firm compacted body is, yet by art's direction, and nature's operation, made a tinging spirit which will never fade
    And in The Hermetical Thriumph:
    The gold of the wise is proper the gold of the second species; for when this gold is perfectly calcined, and exalted to the cleanness and whiteness of snow, it acquires, by Magistery, a natural sympathy for the Astral Gold, of whom it has become visibly a true magnet, ...
    So, it seems that Hudson provides us with a nice verifiable and well documented way to exalt gold to "the cleanness and whiteness of snow". We shouldn't decline his patent without even testing it first.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Considering they (old books) are the source material that Hudson (et all) have drawn from......
    Not exactly accurate. Hudson claims to have read between 5-600 books. I count about 29 books in his bibliography and about 15 scattered references in his 1994 paper, none of which could be considered classical. But the total number 45 or so, is between ‘five’ and ‘six hundred’.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    You're just wrong here.
    Just admit your judgements are premature and not scientifically supported.
    You basically already have by saying you've taken McLean's word for the truth.
    Well, I also have the ability to think clearly and assess evidence. I was asked for as source that claims against it and I provided one. You object to it because you are a “true believer”. The rules are very simple. If you make the claims, you provide the proofs.

    Adam Mclean, who is a well known scholar of Alchemy, came to the conclusion this was a scam. I also came to the same conclusion but I looked at a different set of evidence. We both reached the same conclusion independently of each other.

    David Hudson was not a chemist or physicist, but he sure cranks out a lot of technical information. It would appear that David Hudson himself was scammed out of everything he had, the house, the farm, his money, etc. When the money was all gone, he was left out in the desert so the vultures could pick on the remaining flesh.

    Hudson was a farmer with some interest in gold mining. He didn’t have any technical knowledge of atomic orbitals and high tech analysis. All he had was money. He did though have a chemist working for him, who I suspect is the originator of all his patents and other stuff. His chemist was either totally incompetent or just telling Hudson what he wanted to hear in order to get more money.

    I quote from his 1994 paper, “The best current known deposit of platinum group metals lies in South Africa and produces only about 1/3 oz./ton. David was able to obtain 2400 oz./ton.”

    ROFL

    Of course this is only my opinion based on my weak background of quantitative and instrumental analysis
    Quote Originally Posted by Dizardos
    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi

    You said it has nothing to do with alchemy.
    I am arguing that, not that everything Hudson said is true.
    If the a process used by a popular alchemist (Glauber) produces the same
    result as one used by those working in what they claim to be m-state,
    then I have proven m-state has to do with alchemy.

    Did you even know that it is synonymous with calx of gold before you rejected it?
    As a matter of fact many alchemists were also chemists so therefore it proves nothing. Boyle's process for the creation of phosphorus is neither alchemical for he was an alchemist and chemist. Even though many often practice alchemy and chemistry there is a great difference between them. Chemistry is the manipulation of dead matter, while alchemy is the manipulation of living matter. Considering this fact it is clear that M-state materials belong to the area of chemistry and not to alchemy. It might be said that M-state materials have the ability to heal, but so do many pharmaceutical products up to a certain extent. It proves nothing.

    Neither does the word 'calx of gold' prove anything when the context is not clear. Alchemists never were the most lucid when describing their processes. I could have called it body of magnesia, Mars and a myriad of other names.

    David Hudson was a sophist and a chemist, but never an alchemist. Who cares what he has read? During every age known there have been people who have managed to turn their riches into ashes and sulfurous smoke stirred to it by visions of ambitious alchemical rewards. Such a feat requires no difficulty. For every one who is successful a thousand manage to do this. No, even more, ten thousand!

    M-state is no alchemy, but do not hold my word for it.The only living adept I 'know' says so (and just so that it is clear 'know' is a far too big word to use). It is no use to ask me to speak more on this issue, since I will not. You are free to believe that I am merely playing a game of bluff poker.

    I believe that I can also speak in the name of others when I say that M-state materials can and will be of great use to our civilization, especially in the fields of energy and transportation, but it remains no alchemy.

    Have a nice day everyone!

    Dizardos
    Quote Originally Posted by phliosehea
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry
    Considering they (old books) are the source material that Hudson (et all) have drawn from......
    Not exactly accurate. Hudson claims to have read between 5-600 books. I count about 29 books in his bibliography and about 15 scattered references in his 1994 paper, none of which could be considered classical. But the total number 45 or so, is between ‘five’ and ‘six hundred’.
    Yes I suppose you're right...poor choice of words on my part. Not the source per se' - but he did try rather hard to link the two -would've been more accurate.
    Quote Originally Posted by phliosehea
    Curiouser and curiouser...don't suppose you could be persuaded to post an introduction Dizardos?
    Quote Originally Posted by theFool
    I would be glad to see of what you have to say about Agricola praising the virtues of gold, metallic gold, no secrecy at all. The book is here: ( http://www.rexresearch.com/alchemy/agricola.htm ). Those are the chapters:
    Chapter 1: How to extract the Gold's Virtue and to prepare a wholesome Medicine
    Chapter 2: Gold Oil.
    Chapter 3: Oil of Gold Prepared in the Common Way.
    Chapter 4: Another Process for the Preparation of Oil of Gold.
    Chapter 4: How to Prepare the Quintessence of Gold.
    Chapter 5: A Common Way of Making Potable Gold.
    Chapter 6: How the Purging ( ) is to be prepared.
    Chapter 7: How to Prepare Diaphoretic Gold.
    Chapter 8: How to Prepare a Mercurium Vivum from Gold and Other Metals.
    Chapter 9: How to Prepare Vitriol from Gold.
    Lets see some selected excerpts:
    Laminated gold has to be dissolved in Aqua Regis. When it is dissolved, the oil of tartar (for Mutratar is tartarum', the letters have only been transposed) has to be poured in drop by drop. A strong roaring and effervescence will arise, But the drops must be put in only one after another because of the fast ebullition. When the fermentation has stopped and everything is calm, the liquid has to be distilled off (it can also be just poured down while the gold precipitates). Some powder is left. Warm water has to be poured on that to remove the sharpness.
    Aqua Regia to dissolve gold and rising the ph with potassium carbonate, seems close to the methods of Hudson.

    In another recipie, he says how to calcine metallic gold and speaks about its meicinal virtues:
    ...Then it [gold] is correctly and well calcined, and you may be sure that you cannot get a better calcination. It will become so subtle that it can easily be used in medicines for several sicknesses without any further preparation, for this calx is sweet and not contaminated by any corrosives.
    It is said that white powder of gold has a sweet taste.

    Is Agricola a classical alchemy writer?
    What do you believe of the mythical aurum potabile? Can it be prepared without metallic gold?

    Dizardos wrote:
    Neither does the word 'calx of gold' prove anything when the context is not clear. Alchemists never were the most lucid when describing their processes. I could have called it body of magnesia, Mars and a myriad of other names.
    I think here Agricola speaks clearly of metallic gold. The operation of calcination on gold, leads to calx of gold.
    Chemistry is the manipulation of dead matter, while alchemy is the manipulation of living matter. Considering this fact it is clear that M-state materials belong to the area of chemistry and not to alchemy
    I will agree with that. M-state is closer to chemistry. But m-state theory could be of great service to practical Alchemy. For example, a test could be developed to check if a substance is "dead" or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dizardos
    Quote Originally Posted by theFool
    I would be glad to see of what you have to say about Agricola praising the virtues of gold, metallic gold, no secrecy at all.

    Laminated gold has to be dissolved in Aqua Regis. When it is dissolved, the oil of tartar (for Mutratar is tartarum', the letters have only been transposed) has to be poured in drop by drop. A strong roaring and effervescence will arise, But the drops must be put in only one after another because of the fast ebullition. When the fermentation has stopped and everything is calm, the liquid has to be distilled off (it can also be just poured down while the gold precipitates). Some powder is left. Warm water has to be poured on that to remove the sharpness.
    Aqua Regia to dissolve gold and rising the ph with potassium carbonate, seems close to the methods of Hudson.

    In another recipie, he says how to calcine metallic gold and speaks about its meicinal virtues:
    ...Then it [gold] is correctly and well calcined, and you may be sure that you cannot get a better calcination. It will become so subtle that it can easily be used in medicines for several sicknesses without any further preparation, for this calx is sweet and not contaminated by any corrosives.
    It is said that white powder of gold has a sweet taste.

    Is Agricola a classical alchemy writer?
    What do you believe of the mythical aurum potabile? Can it be prepared without metallic gold?
    Agricola is definitely a classical writer. The question nevertheless remains how one would interpret the work. It can be taken literally, symbolically and anything in between the extremes. I would interpret the 'laminated gold' method as the second step out of the three great ones that have to be undertaken. As you will notice in many works they warn not to drown your substance in too much moisture and therefore it has to be distilled off (although not in this text). Such warnings have no place in the manipulation of M-state materials. While this may sound as weak arguments concerning your first Agricola quote, I will state in my defense that there is no mention of the tireless repetitions of this process necessary for true M-state material which if the text could be taken completely literally it would have mentioned this.

    The calcination Agricola refers to might just as well refer to a calcination with their water which produces potable gold if not taken literally, since it has been said more than once that chemists burn with fire and alchemists with water (and I do not doubt that many will say that this reference is to aqua regia). Agricola says the following:

    "This is certain and true: gold may be prepared as anyone wishes, without the universal menstruum of the ancient ones --- it is yet not the ancients' aurum, for their gold is a different gold.

    I can imagine that Basil Valentine means antimony by the term Grey Wolf - much less Paracelsus. Although many call antimony the Grey Wolf, it is only to be understood figuratively and is only enigmatically true. Is it that antimony, or the Grey Wolf, refines gold and adds a beautiful lustre to it? But how does it help the Philosophical Work? For all philosophers admit unanimously that their gold is no common gold. Yes, their gold dissolves gold. If then it is not common gold, how can it be processed through antimony? Common gold is dead and powerless, unless it be dissolved through the prima materia out of which it was born, and be born a second time. Only then will it really become Philosophical Gold and aurum potable, a small dose of which can drive away all sicknesses in a short time."

    I believe a fair number of Philosophers did not start out with gold to create their aurum potabile.

    Everyone should follow their own path despite what others might say, since it is your own future that depends on it. If it follows in the tracks of others, that could be good. If not, who cares? The majority is never right anyway. Words do not guarantee an earthly heaven.

    Have a nice day!

    Dizardos
    Quote Originally Posted by theFool
    The question nevertheless remains how one would interpret the work.
    Unfortunatelly, I haven't posted the whole recipie of Agricola. When I read it whole, I was convinced he was speaking of metallic gold. But yes, a lot of alchemical writings refer to different kind of gold and they can trick you. After all, even Agricolla himself could be tricked by that.

    "This is certain and true: gold may be prepared as anyone wishes, without the universal menstruum of the ancient ones --- it is yet not the ancients' aurum, for their gold is a different gold."
    Actually, all those recipies use a menstruum to further treat the calx, they don't use the calx as is. Maybe the medicinal quality is in the menstruum and the calx just help it somehow. I just mentioned the recipie to show that maybe the old operators knew of "m-state" and used it as an ingridient, not as a Stone.

    Nice arguments, thanks for the construcful conversation!
    Quote Originally Posted by theFool
    Let us see also what John French says on the matter in the book "Art of distillation". Maybe he is not so well known. Mention that he was a doctor interested in medicines, not an alchemist. He speaks in plain language, not hidden. If you read him, all of the text, you will understand that when he says gold he means gold. After all, he uses aqua regia to dissolve it, what could else could be so undissolvable? Look:
    Dissolve pure fine gold in aqua regis according to art (..) which clear solution put into a large glass of a wide neck and upon it pour drop by drop oil of tartar made per deliquium, until the aqua regis which before was yellow becomes clear and white, for that is a sign that all calx of gold is settled to the bottom. Then let it stand all night, and in the morning pour off the clear liquor, and wash the calx four or five times with common spring water, being warmed, and dry it with a most gentle heat.
    He says it clearly: Calx of gold; metallic gold. Then he continues by using a special menstruum to make the medicine, he does not consume the calx of gold as is of course.
    And again, under the title "Tincture of Gold" he describes a similar process and precipitates by the use of spirit of salt (hydrochloric acid) a white snow:
    ...By a long digestion some part of the gold will fall to the bottom like a white snow...
    Gold falls down as a white snow, he says it clear. If you ever have made yourself an m-state precip by the wet method (by method 4) you cannot miss it. After adding the HCl, it falls slowly and is very lightweigh. Actually, upon close examination you will find that the falling particles have branches just like a snowflake!
    But don't take my word for it. Try it yourself. After all, it goes like this: ora, lege et labora!
    Quote Originally Posted by Dizardos
    John French is indeed lucid in his writings. There are no doors that need to opened there, but the reality is that some of his experiments cannot be shown in the sunlight. At one point for example he describes a process by which one should be able to condense the rays of the sun and the moon via a lens focused on a sponge into powder (I believe I am able to say large heaps of powder in a short time). Since it is a sponge we could deduce that it is likely that the sponge is wet, but the fact remains that the influences of the sun and moon only create ammoniumnitrate on this wet sponge. This ammoniumnitrate is able to cause the spontaneous generation of the smallest of plants, but more than this will not happen.

    While the above may sound very negative, I must say that John French's insight into distillation can be very useful. Most writers only tell a part of the truth, so one still needs to puzzle to see how it all fits together.

    I do not doubt that John French was honest to his readers with the knowledge that he had, but alchemy never was an easy study and especially in that age where one had limited access to information. Alchemy uses allegories, parables, symbolism and hides the truth in every possible way, even in the form of processes. It is in the days of the week, the months, the letters and order of the alphabet, numbers, mythologies, religions, mystery studies, languages and tales for children. One cannot look somewhere and not see it. Thus the ancients truly did attempt to offer everyone an equal chance to find it.

    If you believe it is the true process, then try it and see if the theory corresponds to practice. Not just the signs, because I do not doubt that the signs are as described, but also the effects. I wish you good luck.

    The main problem nowadays is that many write about alchemy while having no knowledge of actual processes. It is irrelevant whether or not they have studied alchemy their whole life. In fact it makes it only worse when one has studied his or her whole life without being successful and then decides to write a book about 'the way it should be done'. It creates an avalanche of confusion and chaos that takes along many loyal followers to the final destination: failure.

    Have a nice day!

    Dizardos

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,567
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry

    Well, I also have the ability to think clearly and assess evidence. I was asked for as source that claims against it and I provided one. You object to it because you are a “true believer”. The rules are very simple. If you make the claims, you provide the proofs.
    Right. You claimed m-state has nothing to do with alchemy and provided no proof.
    I am not a believer in anything. I despise belief. I am very practical. I have DONE things, not
    believed things. I said I KNOW m-state is alchemy, not I believe... I know because I have done work,
    not scholarly work, actual hands-on work. I've been ingesting this stuff off and on for nearly 10 years.
    I don't have beliefs about it. You, on the other hand, are a believer - disbeliever - same thing.
    How much "m-state" have you made? Taken? Have you worked beside anyone competent
    in m-state technology and witnessed their art?

    You've been asked what your proof is that m-state has nothing to do with alchemy and all you
    provided is Adam McLean, which isn't proof at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi
    Quote Originally Posted by Dizardos
    As a matter of fact many alchemists were also chemists so therefore it proves nothing. Boyle's process for the creation of phosphorus is neither alchemical for he was an alchemist and chemist. Even though many often practice alchemy and chemistry there is a great difference between them. Chemistry is the manipulation of dead matter, while alchemy is the manipulation of living matter. Considering this fact it is clear that M-state materials belong to the area of chemistry and not to alchemy. It might be said that M-state materials have the ability to heal, but so do many pharmaceutical products up to a certain extent. It proves nothing.

    Neither does the word 'calx of gold' prove anything when the context is not clear. Alchemists never were the most lucid when describing their processes. I could have called it body of magnesia, Mars and a myriad of other names.

    David Hudson was a sophist and a chemist, but never an alchemist. Who cares what he has read? During every age known there have been people who have managed to turn their riches into ashes and sulfurous smoke stirred to it by visions of ambitious alchemical rewards. Such a feat requires no difficulty. For every one who is successful a thousand manage to do this. No, even more, ten thousand!

    M-state is no alchemy, but do not hold my word for it.The only living adept I 'know' says so (and just so that it is clear 'know' is a far too big word to use). It is no use to ask me to speak more on this issue, since I will not. You are free to believe that I am merely playing a game of bluff poker.

    I believe that I can also speak in the name of others when I say that M-state materials can and will be of great use to our civilization, especially in the fields of energy and transportation, but it remains no alchemy.
    I've stated in another post that it isn't alchemy ala Fulcanelli's definition.
    But that isn't what Jerry's talking about.
    If it is, I have already agreed with him and there is nothing to argue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dizardos
    Quote Originally Posted by phliosehea
    Curiouser and curiouser...don't suppose you could be persuaded to post an introduction Dizardos?
    I might indeed give some information about myself, but it might be more interesting to find out how certain perspectives on Alchemy are created. Therefore I will say that I come from the Netherlands and have been studying Alchemy for a number of years. I came upon it via the stories of Laurence Gardner and ORMUS, but there was something terribly wrong there. Gardner might have attempted to draw up a convincing picture, but his lack of true knowledge concerning the true biblical meanings and symbolism becomes very apparent when he uses words such as 'Adonai' in his book 'Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark' (since this word might be used often, but is not the true name). Something such as this is not irrelevant when he uses his interpretation of the bible to demonstrate the knowledge and use of ORMUS. Via the book of Artephius I found the Art of Alchemy. When one is new to a certain art one holds the 'living experts' who remove the veil in great veneration. They know everything and you know nothing, or so it seems. As a busy ant one immediately moves to a variety of practical methods after having learned 'the basics', but when done one is the possessor of a worthless substance. One has lost time and expense. One might think that it is the skill of the operator that was inadequate and so one does more practical work with similar results. Some will work with such sophisticated methods until they are old, poor and bitter, always believing they were simply not as good as their master. Do not follow the naked emperors! Those who decide to follow someone better make sure they are adepts or at least well versed in the true Philosophy of the adepts. Naked emperors can be followed for all eternity, but tell me how this helps one with the creation of the Stone when one has no knowledge of what one is attempting to do with all kinds of sophisticated experiments except listening to the authority of others? Science is no different. If that was all that was needed, science would have found the Stone first! Ask the naked emperors whether there is a method behind the madness. Pierre speaks truthfully when he says that Nature is followed, but we are not merely following Nature. We are exalting her creations and therefore I do not hold the opinion that everything he has said about that is correct. We assist Her in ways that give life to creations that She could never produce on her own. Whatever you are doing, know what you are doing. Do not be content with recipes, but learn why it should work. Only hard work is able to move the mountain of ignorance. I believe that everyone who is so inflamed with the Philosophy of Alchemy, thinks about it all the time and works day and night will acquire the Crown jewel of the Study.

    Everyone is free to discard or value my words, but if one finds that there is something worthy to be remembered, let it be this: When one has the true understanding, all true philosophers agree perfectly in their sayings as different as their words might seem to be.

    Have a nice day!

    Dizardos
    Quote Originally Posted by deviadah
    I hope the mood in this thread is a positive one!

    You know it is always good with a healthy debate...

    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi
    You've been asked what your proof is that m-state has nothing to do with alchemy and all you provided is Adam McLean, which isn't proof at all.
    I have repect for McLeans work, but I also feel that there is a bit too much Phd attitude over him... if you get me? Let me quote him:
    Many of these [discussion groups on alchemy] degenerated due to the participants not having any real scholarly solidity. People with diverse belief systems all seem to want to claim alchemy as reflecting their individual beliefs. My view is, that alchemy must be investigated and discussed in a scholarly way, using established methods of textual analysis, contextualising and historical referencing. Very few of the people interested in alchemy today seem to adopt that approach. - source
    This approach is not necessarily wrong, but it is also not the whole picture - nor the only truth!
    Quote Originally Posted by theFool
    I know that a lot of old recipies are ridiculous when seen under our modern light. Also, a lot of writers, may be mistaken in their recipies, especially when they don't say if they have tried it themselves or not. I don't give much credit to those recipies, especially when it comes to practical alchemy, because they could be dangerous at least. I just wrote those excerpts because I was pressed to give a connection between m-state and alchemy. I stay away from following others blindly but one must start from somewhere. My path, will be my own creation, God allowing.

    "If you believe it is the true process, then try it and see if the theory corresponds to practice."

    I don't think I'll take it to the end. I'm extremely cautious about any medicinal claims and still healthy. But I believe that here is described an "m-state" recipie.

    " It creates an avalanche of confusion and chaos that takes along many loyal followers to the final destination: failure."

    I see alchemy as a vast reservoir of knowledge waiting to be discovered. For me, every experiment I verify that can help expand the frontiers of our science, is a success. If my primary motive was transmutation or medicine, I would have been disappointed and stop doing it a long time ago.

    Having a master when you begin, can be a blessing but later becomes the opposite.

    "Do not be content with recipes, but learn why it should work."

    That's why we must formulate a theory that should try to explain alchemy using facts reproducible by anyone. Without an Adept to quide us, we need it.
    Quote Originally Posted by phliosehea
    deviadah: I have repect for McLeans work, but I also feel that there is a bit too much Phd attitude over him...
    Yes...I concur. In general I respect his approach (to only use "source" material) but I believe somewhere along the way his "expertise" took over and replaced any "wonderment" with something cold and clinical. To some degree, reasoning is beneficial to understanding the work...but only after the tacit whisper from God that allows ones entry. Since that would be a "belief" based notion I doubt he will ever be more then a tourist. And I take this advice from his "source" material...that being- that only God grants these keys.
    Quote Originally Posted by deviadah
    Quote Originally Posted by phliosehea
    ...but only after the tacit whisper from God that allows ones entry.
    With the risk of getting this off topic I must ask exactly why you mean by God when you use it in your argument.
    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi
    Quote Originally Posted by Dizardos
    It proves nothing.

    Neither does the word 'calx of gold' prove anything when the context is not clear. Alchemists never were the most lucid when describing their processes. I could have called it body of magnesia, Mars and a myriad of other names.

    David Hudson was a sophist and a chemist, but never an alchemist. Who cares what he has read? During every age known there have been people who have managed to turn their riches into ashes and sulfurous smoke stirred to it by visions of ambitious alchemical rewards. Such a feat requires no difficulty. For every one who is successful a thousand manage to do this. No, even more, ten thousand!

    M-state is no alchemy, but do not hold my word for it.The only living adept I 'know' says so (and just so that it is clear 'know' is a far too big word to use). It is no use to ask me to speak more on this issue, since I will not. You are free to believe that I am merely playing a game of bluff poker.

    I believe that I can also speak in the name of others when I say that M-state materials can and will be of great use to our civilization, especially in the fields of energy and transportation, but it remains no alchemy.
    You say several times "it proves nothing".
    It proves what I said it proves - that classical alchemists used the same processes
    and ended up with the same materials - call it calx of gold or m-state - what does it matter
    what you call it? Anyone doing the method will end up with the same result.

    So if 'old alchemists' who used these methods/materials had "something" to do with alchemy,
    it stands to reason that Hudson and m-state do too.

    How can that be argued? It's pretty simple.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dizardos

    Read my words above again and then have a look at this link:

    Glauber's professions

    It matters greatly what someone calls it, for that makes one well or ill informed in relation to the true matter and method. Either way you should do what you believe is best. Everyone is rewarded or punished in correspondence with the quality of their actions. Time is the best teacher, although unfortunately our time is short until the solution is found.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,567
    Blog Entries
    4
    Alchemists have a hundred names for our mercury - you can't deduce
    from the name whether they know the source and the method.

    The fact is, if you use the same method and call the product different names, they're
    still the same product. This is the case with m-state and calx of gold according to the
    method outlined before.

    I read your words. The words "it proves nothing" are subjective.
    It proves something to me. And it may be sufficient proof for other reasonable readers
    that this method has something to do with alchemy since several alchemists utilised it.
    And in some instances they used different methods and resulted in the same product.
    This is all I'm trying to show - that it has something to do with alchemy, archemy, spagyria...
    I'm not in any way saying this is my prefered method or something, so your comment about
    doing what I believe is best is not appropriate. I don't believe it's best. I'm simply arguing that
    this has something to do with alchemy. I've said that a couple times before. I don't think
    you're listening to me.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,567
    Blog Entries
    4
    Hi RogerC, and anyone else.
    I posted this question to Rogerc, but anyone who has knowledge may take a shot at it:

    Hi RogerC

    I may not have phrased my questions accurately in a couple instances.
    I don't mean to keep you busy, so it's fine if you don't want to get into things.

    I didn't really want to know if you thought monoatomics was alchemy as opposed to spagyrics or archemy.
    I meant why do you suppose the qualities i mentioned (invisibility, levitation, 68% in "spirit world",
    plenty of substance that doesn't register as any known elements under an arc...) exist in something that is not
    the Philosophers' stone, or at least some stage of it? Are these properties not signs/signatures?
    Should we not know the tree by its fruits? These are pretty amazing fruits! But the tree is not alchemical???
    Just seems too "Occam's razor" to not be. I understand that our astral spirit is said to flee the violence of acids, etc.
    So one can, by that definition, say this is not alchemy. But by every other definition, it is! You eat it and have OBEs
    and see angels and have kundalini risings...

    How do you explain the similarities?
    http://serpentrioarquila.blogspot.com/

    "To conjure is nothing else than to observe anything rightly, to know and understand what it is." - Paracelsus

    "Why, then, don't you act when you see the danger of your conditioning? The answer is you don't see... seeing is acting." J. Krishnamurti

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by solomon levi View Post
    Hi RogerC, and anyone else.
    I posted this question to Rogerc, but anyone who has knowledge may take a shot at it:

    Hi RogerC

    I may not have phrased my questions accurately in a couple instances.
    I don't mean to keep you busy, so it's fine if you don't want to get into things.

    I didn't really want to know if you thought monoatomics was alchemy as opposed to spagyrics or archemy.
    I meant why do you suppose the qualities i mentioned (invisibility, levitation, 68% in "spirit world",
    plenty of substance that doesn't register as any known elements under an arc...) exist in something that is not
    the Philosophers' stone, or at least some stage of it? Are these properties not signs/signatures?
    Should we not know the tree by its fruits? These are pretty amazing fruits! But the tree is not alchemical???
    Just seems too "Occam's razor" to not be. I understand that our astral spirit is said to flee the violence of acids, etc.
    So one can, by that definition, say this is not alchemy. But by every other definition, it is! You eat it and have OBEs
    and see angels and have kundalini risings...

    How do you explain the similarities?
    So here you seem to be refering to Hudson's claims directly. Ok I have studied his work extensively, I have his Dallas lecture on dvd, it came in three disc series for $59.95... I have watched it several times, I read the other transcripts as well, its funny that the story kept morphing...kinda like a fish story, where the fish keeps getting bigger and bigger, especially Carter's embellishments. I also used to frequent the subtleenergies website.....one thing I have realized is that Barry Carter puts alot of words in Hudson's mouth and makes alot of claims on behalf of Hudson that he himself never claimed, I see this and most of what is on his website as a pseudo-scientific babble, a shotgun approach by Carter and his cronies to link everything together no matter how loosely and throw it all in together even with alchemy, archemy and spagyrics into one shotgun shell they call..."ormus" or "m-state". Now back to Hudson.... have you ever asked yourself like why these lectures he gave were only at new age type symposiums? Never in front of the scientific community only in front of uneducated new age hippie types, like are these people really in a position to refute anything he says especially when he presents scientific paper after paper in support of his claims no matter how far reaching his assumptions? Like these types of people want to believe in the occult so bad, they will buy anything...did you ever consider why Hudson spoke at these events for money? If he really cared about the truth and alchemy and philosophy? He said it himself that it was all a hoax at one point when the fever seemed to die out of this new age movement in the late 90's and his application for patent was denied, of course he claimed a govenment conspiracy, and isn't it funny that there is always a government conspiracy trying to hide the truth , like when I think of Obama and the current adminstration I am wondering where are all these ultra-intelligent types? Hmmm.....they must be too busy trying to keep secrets that they have let the country fall to shit. As far as this new age movement prevalent in the 90's only recently has it experience a resurrgance, and he(Hudson) has agreed to speak for money again, thats right for $150 dollars a year you can get in on the ormus teleconferences...I say what a farce, and still where is the real alchemy? ....Only in the classics. Hudson is no alchemist and he never claimed to be, he only wanted one thing......like Mr. Crabs(the character from the cartoon series SpongeBob SquarePants) says.... money,money, money, money...even at the very begining before he knew anything of alchemy, he was after what exactly?.... ok......let's make one point here blatantly clear, he was after the rich deposits of rhodium and platinum group metals he thought were there, not gold...so why does Carter try to link an anomolous state of rhodium to an anomolous state of gold, like they are nothing alike! Hudson never claimed white powder gold could levitate or become a super-conducter, or could cure specific types of diseases, he made it clear blatantly clear only rhodium did all those things, but his claims were never duplicated, wheres the rhodium panacea pill that cures everything?...so why does Carter say dead sea salt precipitate is the same as white powder gold and white powder rhodium, and sodium burn on black sand, it is clear they are not all the same. Do we use rhodium or platinum in the alchemy? No.
    Now as for his claims and their veracity, no one every succeeded at producing this anomlous state of rhodium that he claimed, his patents were never granted, if so where are the scientific papers on this state of rhodium being a superconductor? Where are all the practical applications? Where's the new iphones employing rhodium superconductors for 100million G service? I invite you to do a google search, in reality it doesn't exist. I have a recently published book (real cutting edge technology) on the next generation superconductors ....guess what, Hudson isn't in it, neither is his white powder of rhodium. In fact every claim he made was groundless and refuted at one point, that is why he admitted there was nothing to it.

    Now, in my past, in trying to link science to alchemy do you think that I didn't venture into the "spooky" world of quantum mechanics to try and provide an explanation I would be comfortable with? Indeed I did...heres the problem ....superconductors, cooper pairs, quantum tunneling and all the ground state general "spookieness", all these effects that can only be produced by these real anamolous states of matter, they must be produced in a laboratory, they have to be chilled to near 0 degrees kelvin, by combinations of evaporative cooling/optical molasses , in reality there is no such thing as a room temperature superconductor, there is no superconductor in blood but I tell you what there is a real occult sympathy in blood, thus the action cannot be explained by cooper pairing and quantum mechanics. All these effects I mention:
    How do you account for demon possesion, poltergeists, ghosts, fakirs and tibetan monks levitating stones and themselves that all exhibit characteritcs that do not conform to the laws of physics of this world, how do you reconcile all the hermetic sympathies especially with blood that Willie Schrodter wrote in the book "A Rosicrucian Notebook" ...or do you like most scientists simply choose not to believe in these things because they do not suite your outlook on life?
    ....especially the levitation we don't need superconductors or Hudson's white powder of ______ (you fill in the blank) so in light of all this if we are being discerning and truthful how are these things related...I'll answer on your behalf...They are not related.....Like Hellin Hermetist said:
    One of the occult powers of sound
    Quantum mechanics is "spooky" as some scientists proclaim but it is not "occult". Our alchemy on the other hand it does produce the astral, occult, and philosophic stone. Thank God it can't be explained by quantum mechanics.
    Last edited by rogerc; 10-07-2011 at 06:45 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    everywhere
    Posts
    4,567
    Blog Entries
    4
    Thanks for your reply Rogerc.

    So Hudson's claims cannot be used as evidence. Ok - I'll accept that since i have nothing to
    contribute to said evidence.

    May I ask what is it behind the magnetism of m-gold?
    Is that telling us anything of the occult or the quantum?
    There are enough people who have achieved this magnetism - it's on youtube etc.
    So we cannot argue its claim. What is this magnetism telling us in your view?

    Similarly, there exist psychotronic generators that become magnetic to things that aren't
    even metal sometimes. Possibly related. What is this magnetic virtue? Is this alchemy?

    Thanks so much for your time and knowledge!
    solomon
    http://serpentrioarquila.blogspot.com/

    "To conjure is nothing else than to observe anything rightly, to know and understand what it is." - Paracelsus

    "Why, then, don't you act when you see the danger of your conditioning? The answer is you don't see... seeing is acting." J. Krishnamurti

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    40
    Let me add a few things:
    In his first speech after the 12 years absence, Hudson stated, that only Gold and maybe Silver ORMEs is capable of room temperature superconductivity. The Platin group ORMEs reqired 275 C, iirc.

    He also relativated, by Superconductive he didn't mean an electrical connection, because nothing could be connected to m-state material. But he mentioned the levitating frog, which tells us he meant diamagnetism. A frog, or water, graphite and other materials are diamagnetic, and the effect is massively increased at temperatures like that of liquid nitrogen etc., along with electrical superconductivity. Diamagnetism pushes things away from the magnet.

    So, the m-state gold performs like that frog, only at room temperature. This seems to be the reason why Hudson came up with the term Superconductive. Of course, he never connected wires to the material to check the Ohm resistivity, as far as I know.

    However, the behaviour of m-state gold could also be caused by reflections of harmonics of natural vibrations, such as Schuhman frequencies, or lightwaves, or cosmic rays. Alternating polarity magnets are in fact used to attract non-ferromagnetic metals, a working patent.
    It seems only logical that a vibrating metal atom could cause similar effects. And from all we hear about ORMEs, it wouldn't surprise me if they actually DO vibrate somehow.

    .
    Last edited by Breemar; 08-24-2014 at 02:01 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,108
    Blog Entries
    13
    Solomon Levi is right in my opinion.

    Even though, some believe alchemy to be exclusively concerning the manipulation of the elements upon first matter, there are people who produce powerful stones, using true gold and silver, and these calx of gold materials are one of the steps t'ward this.

    I also agree with not labelling alchemy so definitively. This could stifle its growth.
    Last edited by Awani; 02-19-2017 at 01:36 PM. Reason: typo
    Join me; on a voyage of stupidity, and self discovery: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=vccZSHroTG4

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    538
    Quote Originally Posted by elixirmixer View Post
    there are people who produce powerful stones, using true gold and silver
    Who are you talking about?

    I cannot name a single person with a powerful stone in their possession. ...What are these people able to do with their stone?
    Last edited by Schmuldvich; 02-19-2017 at 05:21 PM.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts