Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Electrons, Protons, Neutrons, and Alchemical Theory

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bridger Mountains
    Posts
    1,566
    Blog Entries
    4

    Electrons, Protons, Neutrons, and Alchemical Theory

    This is a spin-off thread from here

    Quote Originally Posted by z0 K View Post

    Then again perhaps these manipulations of organic source material are presenting isotopes of certain elements containing extra neutrons with opportunities to rid themselves of the burdensome neutrons. The loose neutrons get involved in a tug of war with other elements complexing in redox and they are undone into protons and electrons that get involved in new structures for our delight.
    I see the only way to rid an atom of neutrons is to bring the protons out into the electron shell and bind the two together (the so-called positive charge binding with the so-called negative charge).

    But I'm highly skept call of Physic's understanding of the 'atom'.

    What are neutrons for anyways?
    Last edited by Kiorionis; 04-14-2017 at 01:14 AM.
    Art is Nature in the flask; Nature is a vial thing.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiorionis View Post
    I see the only way to rid an atom of neutrons is to bring the protons out into the electron shell and bind the two together (the ao-called positive charge along with the so called negative charge).

    But I'm highly skept call of Physic's understanding of the 'atom'.

    What are neutrons for anyways?
    According to their theories about matter, neutrons are there to keep the nucleus stable, otherwise all those positive charges from the protons would repel each other and the nucleus would not be able to remain together.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Kiorionis View Post
    I see the only way to rid an atom of neutrons is to bring the protons out into the electron shell and bind the two together (the ao-called positive charge along with the so called negative charge).

    But I'm highly skept call of Physic's understanding of the 'atom'.
    Many elements have isotopes with extra neutrons. Most are unstable and the extra neutrons decay naturally at a fast rate. Potassium has 24 known isotopes. Of the three most stable one K-40 is radioactive. The heaviest K-41 has two more neutrons than K-39 which is most prevalent at 93% of naturally occurring potassium.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_potassium

    The hypothesis is similar to LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction) only the idea is that some of these extra neutrons can be coaxed out of the reflux matirx in the philosophical mercury because they are unstable. One idea is some of the extra neutrons are lower energy and can be lost from the atom of origin into the flux where they are torn apart into electrons and protons which are then absorbed into the matrix crystallizing. The crystallization is driven (catalyst) by the secret salt already involved in the matrix.

    This is a hypothesis in progress

    What are neutrons for anyways?
    Good question.

    This is interesting and is useful for the low energy hypothesis:

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/qu...ent-in-an-atom

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bridger Mountains
    Posts
    1,566
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    According to their theories about matter, neutrons are there to keep the nucleus stable, otherwise all those positive charges from the protons would repel each other and the nucleus would not be able to remain together.
    That really doesn't give much weight to the metaphysical theory of "like attracts like"


    Quote Originally Posted by z0 K View Post
    Many elements have isotopes with extra neutrons. Most are unstable and the extra neutrons decay naturally at a fast rate.
    This is an interesting concept given the idea of "fixing the volatile." As long as 'volatility' is measured in rate-of-decay...

    Again, my skepticism of the modern understanding of the 'atom' comes into play. My anthem being "Science continually proves Science wrong"

    Personally, I see the electron as being a misleading concept. Equivalent resonance between magnetic fields moves energy according to the laws of magnetic induction. Energy in my mind is a binding between the positive and negative -- or the proton and the electron. As far as I understand it, this is what magnetic induction produces -- the flow of energy between potentials (an example being the Tesla coil ). Still working that one out

    Would love to hear Dendric's perspective on this.
    Last edited by Kiorionis; 04-14-2017 at 11:45 AM. Reason: merging posts
    Art is Nature in the flask; Nature is a vial thing.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    4,580
    Blog Entries
    1
    Ed Leedskalnin said that science is misled by this false electron principle. He said there are no electrons and the false conclusion came about by giving the cathode in a vacuum tube a double dose of negative, from an unbalanced power source that was used by Thomson. Ed said it should have been given an equal amount of positive and negative running Positive electricity against Negative electricity. Ed Leedskalnin said the electron theories are wrong and have misled millions of people from the truth. Ed Leedskalnin also mentions the instruments for measuring are all one sided.
    SOURCE

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Bridger Mountains
    Posts
    1,566
    Blog Entries
    4
    Thanks again, exactly what I've been looking for
    Art is Nature in the flask; Nature is a vial thing.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    323
    My parents actually visited Leedskalnin's coral castle while my mother was pregnant with me.

    I like that he provides simple experiments to validate the theory in his book Magnetic Current.

    I've also heard some claim that only electrons and positrons exist.
    That neutrons, protons, and quarks can all be explained as composite structures of electrons and positrons. Don't remember how the annihilation issue was resolved.

+ 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