Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Phosphorus IS the stone

  1. #21
    We know when it was officially discovered, but the odds are alchemist before had discovered white phosphorus, and in turn discovered red phosphorus with increased heating of the white. I think my theory matches perfectly with the color described as well as "some" of the traits. Of course phosphorus does not make gold, therefore it must not be the stone right ? Despite the fact that nobody has proven that any of the text accurately describe ANY process of producing gold. Odds are much of the text are fluff content because they found some cool glowing red stone and they told everyone they could make gold, and maybe the yellow version of phosphorus had been found before and assumed to be gold. Either way, my theory cannot "fail" if you cannot tell me how the stone is made. The text are subjective.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,349
    Quote Originally Posted by ArcherSage View Post
    We know when it was officially discovered, but the odds are alchemist before had discovered white phosphorus, and in turn discovered red phosphorus with increased heating of the white. I think my theory matches perfectly with the color described as well as "some" of the traits. Of course phosphorus does not make gold, therefore it must not be the stone right ? Despite the fact that nobody has proven that any of the text accurately describe ANY process of producing gold. Odds are much of the text are fluff content because they found some cool glowing red stone and they told everyone they could make gold, and maybe the yellow version of phosphorus had been found before and assumed to be gold. Either way, my theory cannot "fail" if you cannot tell me how the stone is made. The text are subjective.
    It is possible to assume that Phosphorus was a secret among alchemists since the origins of alchemy.
    Pick any text of your choice and explain it by using Phosphorus... you will end up noticing that at some given point it won't make sense.

    You can try to explain the "12 keys of the phosphorus" by Basil Valentine with an explanation of each step...
    Or the anonymous "Recreations of the Phosphorus".
    Or The "Triumphant chariot of the Phosphorus" by Basil Valentine.
    Or "The secret book of the phosphorus" by Artephius
    Or Agricola's "Treatise on the Phosphorus"... etc, etc....

    You will end up understanding that something doesn't match with those matches.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    164
    Dear ArcherSage

    I hate to say it, but Phosphorus can not be the Stone. You can't find the Stone anywhere on the periodic table (at least not without extending it in peculiar ways).

    The Stone is a kind of exotic matter that has the capacity to attune your body and mind to what Nikola Tesla called "the wheel work of Nature". In other words, the Stone acts as a catalyzer for receiving the Universal Spirit, and it is this very spirit that potentially has the reported effects such as healing virtually any ailment, prolonging life indefinitely, and so on.

    Thus, Phosphorus, important as without a doubt its function is in the human body, especially in regard of biophotons, is NOT the Stone - although perhaps it could serve as a foundation for making the Stone.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by ArcherSage View Post
    We know when it was officially discovered, but the odds are alchemist before had discovered white phosphorus, and in turn discovered red phosphorus with increased heating of the white. I think my theory matches perfectly with the color described as well as "some" of the traits. Of course phosphorus does not make gold, therefore it must not be the stone right ? Despite the fact that nobody has proven that any of the text accurately describe ANY process of producing gold. Odds are much of the text are fluff content because they found some cool glowing red stone and they told everyone they could make gold, and maybe the yellow version of phosphorus had been found before and assumed to be gold. Either way, my theory cannot "fail" if you cannot tell me how the stone is made. The text are subjective.
    Alchemists did no make vacuums inside their flasks (the majority of alchemists were in fact Aristotelians who rejected the very idea of a vacuum; "Nature abhors a vacuum", as Aristotle thought), they also did not know that atmospheric air was in fact a mixture of several very different gases that could actually be separated from each other (this was only finally realized by the investigations of 18th century chemists), so making red phosphorus would have been unknown to them, even if they had known the much more reactive white phosphorus. The fact that it took more than 170 years for chemists to finally figure out how to prepare red phosphorus should already give you an idea that this was not an easy task. The right amount of knowledge and experience had to be accumulated to finally be able to prepare it. The alchemists simply lacked the knowledge and apparatuses necessary to accomplish this task. They worked with different methods and substances.

    Also, the sequence of colors of the "coction" of the Stone is incorrect, as it goes from black, to white, to red, passing through many other colors in between both extremes. Plus on top of that we know from the alchemists' descriptions that a mysterious liquid (i.e. the secret solvent or "water") is involved in this "coction" and that it COAGULATES into the Stone (together with its appropriate "earth" or "sulphur".) None of it fits with a solid whitish flammable substance like phosphorus being heated in the absence of oxygen and turning red. It does not hold water. Sorry.

    And several of the 17th-18th century "chymists" have in fact pretty plainly explained how small amounts of gold can be made from silver through certain processes, so if what motivates you is the idea of transmutation being a "fairy tale", think again. There is nothing remotely "impossible" about it. I myself have many times replicated some of these "chymical" processes and obtained small amounts of silver from lead, bismuth, copper, etc. and small amounts of gold from silver. And NO, it was NOT any "impurities", the metals and reagents used in the above mentioned processes do NOT contain any silver or gold in them, yet at the end of the "chymical" operations you always get a small amount of the precious metals. Why else do you think that I invest so much money and time into researching alchemy and "transmutational chymistry"? It is not because of "blind faith" in anyone's word, that's for sure, since I don't believe in blind faith to begin with (I consider it utter foolishness; "never believe in anything you cannot prove yourself or that you are not given convincing proof of by someone else", that's my philosophy), but because I KNOW HOW REAL THE WHOLE THING IS. Many years ago I too was very skeptical about transmutation, since at that time all my efforts at making any artificial silver or gold had concluded in failure. But after persevering and further deeper investigation, I stumbled upon some of these "proofs" of transmutation in the old "chymical" literature. Some of them were total baloney, yet other ones proved to be VERY REAL. That's what totally changed my mind on the subject, certainly not any "blind faith" on anything. Empirical proof, baby! The rest is BS and empty boasts. Like the old saying says: "Money Talks, BS Walks!"

    http://musicpleer.audio/#!ab53a259b8...9f57faffb8df28
    Last edited by JDP; 10-11-2017 at 10:39 AM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,198
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    I myself have many times replicated some of these "chymical" processes and obtained small amounts of silver from lead, bismuth, copper, etc. and small amounts of gold from silver. And NO, it was NOT any "impurities", the metals and reagents used in the above mentioned processes do NOT contain any silver or gold in them, yet at the end of the "chymical" operations you always get a small amount of the precious metals.
    Have you ever thought how this "chymical" transmutation could be explained from a scientific point of view? According to nuclear physics, you have to change the nucleus of the silver atom in order to make gold. Since you seem to have a thorough knowledge of science, I wonder what is your idea of how could this happen.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by theFool View Post
    Have you ever thought how this "chymical" transmutation could be explained from a scientific point of view? According to nuclear physics, you have to change the nucleus of the silver atom in order to make gold. Since you seem to have a thorough knowledge of science, I wonder what is your idea of how could this happen.
    I know, it does not fit with those theories of modern science, yet it is quite real! That's why I have lost a lot of "respect" (for lack of a better word) for many of the postulates of physics and modern chemistry. Their "laws" are simply generalizations and assumptions based on the phenomena that THEY ARE aware of, but unfortunately for their views there's still plenty of other empirical facts that THEY ARE NOT aware of or simply dismiss (because they are inconvenient for their theories/speculations and so-called laws.) For a long time I too was puzzled as to how could so many of those old "chymists" be so convinced about the reality of metallic transmutation, but after stumbling upon some of these positive processes the whole thing has become very clear. Those guys DID obtain small amounts of silver and gold from substances where there were none before. There is no "mystery" why they were so convinced of it. I am now totally convinced that "chemistry" did not bother at all to make a systematic empirical investigation of the subject, and instead ended up just dismissing transmutation based on the ordinary and basic chemical processes it knows and handles. It just ASSUMES that all reactions between substances supposedly obey the same "internal" mechanisms ("electron shells", "valence", and so forth) and therefore if one reaction does not cause any transmutation, then none will. BIG MISTAKEN GENERALIZING ASSUMPTION! It turns out that "reactions" are not as "egalitarian" as many think, and some have deeper "repercussions" on the intervening metals than others.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,198
    Blog Entries
    3
    Thanks for the reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    BIG MISTAKEN GENERALIZING ASSUMPTION! It turns out that "reactions" are not as "egalitarian" as many think, and some have deeper "repercussions" on the intervening metals than others.
    I agree with your views. For some reason they tend to generalize their laws into everything, thus blocking the new research.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    104
    That can hardly refer to phosphorus, since that substance wasn't known to the ancients.
    i didn't mean phosphorus in particular , just that its described as being well known so chemistry even back then must of already known it
    but been blind to it

    A substance that can accomplish such a feat does not exist anywhere in nature. It is the product of human artifice. So the Stone itself doesn't really exist anywhere until it is purposefully prepared by man
    man only gives nature a microcosm to work in

    the right conditions and reactions to happen. Nature itself, on its own, cannot make such a thing, despite producing all the raw matters necessary.
    all man does is speed up natures work
    the right conditions and reactions do occur natrually
    the whole work is following these conditions for the reactions to occur in a microcosm
    the only thing the alchemist really does
    is use the proper application of heat and separate the Oil from the earth when necessary
    this applies to all different methods
    they are all just applications of different heats and separation of water and earth at different stages

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibric View Post
    all man does is speed up natures work
    the right conditions and reactions do occur natrually
    the whole work is following these conditions for the reactions to occur in a microcosm
    If that was true then we should expect to find the Stone already made somewhere in nature, but it is well known by everyone that such a thing does not happen. The reason is plainly because nature simply can't make this thing, anymore than it can make TNT, or teflon, or Coca-Cola, or any of the myriad other substances that are made by man's ingenuity out of the raw matters that nature provides.

    the only thing the alchemist really does
    is use the proper application of heat and separate the Oil from the earth when necessary
    this applies to all different methods
    they are all just applications of different heats and separation of water and earth at different stages
    That's one of the simplistic ideas that some malicious and envious writers would like you to think so that you get caught in a blind alley and hopefully never manage to get out of it. In reality it is a bit more complex than that. The secret solvent or "water" has to be prepared out of the appropriate "Chaos", or "Magnesia", or "Sericon", or "Antimony", or "Saturn", or "Azoquean Vitriol", or whatever other code-name you want to call it, which is a peculiar mixture of substances in the right proportions, and which does NOT occur anywhere in nature, therefore it is hopeless to go around looking for it somewhere already made for your convenience. Without knowing this initial part (i.e. the composition of this "Magnesia", "Sericon", "Azoquean Vitriol", etc.), you are simply lost and will never succeed in alchemy.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    104
    i respect your views but kindly disagree

    there are texts that are written deliberatly to confuse
    which others back then were perpetually irritated by
    " 400 years to understand villanova " a quote that made me laugh

    apologises for getting off topic

+ 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