Monoatomic Gold Theory

[Who are you?]

Does anyone have any evidence to prove that this is possible please provide real evidence for either side, because just simply bashing the idea is just as barbaric as supporting something with no logic evidence either so please don't just shit talk without any legitimate evidance to back it up or you're  be is going to get called out. 

 

 

I am interested if it is possible that gold clusters can be broken down and held in a monoatomic state like some gasses. 

I've heard about this Orbitally rearranged monoatomic evidence theory for a while and I have no reason to either support nor completely bash it sense I have not found one legit article to either prove or disprove the existence of this theoretical atomic state.

 

 

[swansont]

There is no credible evidence to support the ORME/ORMUS conjecture.

[Strange]

This page lists some of the problems with the concept: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/ORMUS

[Who are you?]

Ive seen that page but it's just a bunch of non evidence based bashing.. The writer present no real points about how the atomic logistics of this theory are not possible.. You're going to need alot more then just saying its not possible..  Alot of people throughout history have said many things now currently accepted by science were not possible even scientists themselves so yeah please provide real factual evidence to support you're claim. 

Yes there are no creditible conjectures to support it is not possible either..

I also want to make clear that i do not support or disprove the idea but due to lack of any substantial evidence coming from both perspectives It has made me wonder. All I get when searching this topic is alot of opinions on both sides but no real concrete logistics.

[Strange]

32 minutes ago, Who are you? said:

The writer present no real points about how the atomic logistics of this theory are not possible..

There is a list of fundamental errors in the claims. How are they not "factual evidence"?

34 minutes ago, Who are you? said:

All I get when searching this topic is alot of opinions on both sides but no real concrete logistics.

There seem to be unsubstantiated and largely meaningless claims on one side and science on the other. Not all "opinions" are equally valid.

 

[Who are you?]

I mean due to the lack any real reasonable  evidence disproving the idea besides just Peoples testimonies that it cannot be done it has me wondering. I mean of course all the other stuff of channeling, chakras, space aliens, ect ect stuff is irrational Forsure,  but coming from a more reasonable place it does kind of make sense as a possibility  if you look at it scientifically. What I mean here is that it's obvious that the body contains if only trace amounts of gold and silver, how else can gold and silver exist in the body where as if it is in a chain bonded state it can be toxic to the body so it must exist at least in a very limited bonded state of not in a single atomic state. It would make sense from a biochemical point of view because the body cannot process heavy metals if they are not broken down like copper and iron. 

It's also obvious that the brain and nervous system exist in a polarised balanced electromagnetic state because the brain is a electromagnet mechanism. So if gold does it exist in the body which actually I'm sure it does, at least at a very broken down state, it will act as at least a minimal second hand catalytic conducter of electricity within the electromagnetic nervous system. I mean every one knows our nervous systems are electrictromagnetic and of you don't you need to go redo do you're 5th grade science reasrch. Inman don't get me wrong I do not support any mystical spirit or conspiracy theory bs, that you see all over the support of this subject but from a scientific standpoint at least just the theory of this atomic gold state stands up to logical analysis at least enough to be tested for. Now I don't believe alot of the claims of David Hudson, his theory of the materials antigravity and disappearing qualities because that doesn't make sense. 

But I do know Forsure that copper can be dissolved and bonded to silicate and salt structures and made to be sold as a salt powder.

However with golds ressilance to chemical dissolution I don't know what you could use to accomplish it by doing this but I guess in theory you could dissolves gold and mix it with clay or salt to make some kind of medicine. I mean there is collidal gold and silver. I'm not sure thoughts?

 

 

Like I said you don't need to bash me, I don't support any of that cure-all nonsense or alchemy,  or any of that bs. 

 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Who are you? said:

I mean due to the lack any real reasonable  evidence disproving the idea

You haven't explained what is wrong with the evidence on that Rational Wiki page. 

6 minutes ago, Who are you? said:

It's also obvious that the brain and nervous system exist in a polarised balanced electromagnetic state because the brain is a electromagnet mechanism.

That is not at all obvious. The brain is not an electromagnet. It is a biochemical system. 

Quote

So if gold does it exist in the body which actually I'm sure it does

Then please provide some evidence for this.

7 minutes ago, Who are you? said:

I mean every one knows our nervous systems are electrictromagnetic

Anyone who "knows" that is seriously misguided and needs to study some basic biology.

[Who are you?]

58 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is a list of fundamental errors in the claims. How are they not "factual evidence"?

There seem to be unsubstantiated and largely meaningless claims on one side and science on the other. Not all "opinions" are equally valid.

 

]lokk

 

58 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is a list of fundamental errors in the claims. How are they not "factual evidence"?

Because sure he is bashing all the nonsense anti gravitational alchemy cure-all nonsense and I disagree as well I don't subscribe to the idea of the easy transmutation of metals through simple chemical reactions in a lab,  however he does not provide Scientific logistics obviously the paranormal stuff and the claims are bs that set aside gold does exist in the body in simple atomic structural form right? Yes. Gold can be dissolved through heavy chemical solvents right? Yes. Look get our of you're ego that whole thought guy shit isn't making youre part any more rational. I'm not supporting the silly nonses just posing food for thought please don't act like a child. 

 

Yeah Thankyou for giving a little more logistics on the actual facts look I don't personally gaf about either side okay I may be mistaken myself. I opened this discussion with this question to get answers not to have a battle of personalities with personal attacks. Please be mature. 

And obviously I don't know.. That's why Im asking questions lol...  xD 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Who are you?
Lo

[Strange]

11 minutes ago, Who are you? said:

So if gold does it exist in the body which actually I'm sure it does

OK. I looked this up in one of my references. There are a few parts per billion of gold in the human body, the highest level (out 16 ppb) in the bones.

It is also used to treat rheumatoid arthritis (look up chrysotherapy if you want to know more) but can only be used for short periods because of very serious side effects.

5 minutes ago, Who are you? said:

Because sure he is bashing all the nonsense anti gravitational alchemy cure-all nonsense

No he isn't. For example:

"He says that gold is similar to alkali metals in that it has one electron on the s subshell of the outermost electron shell and because of this "wants to go to two electrons or it wants no electrons", and therefore regular metallic gold is "diatomic" with the formula Au₂, with an ionic bond between the atoms.^[1][5] This shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of chemical bonding in metals. If his theory was true, gold would have a much lower melting temperature and would not be malleable or ductile."

That has nothing to with "anti gravitational alchemy cure-all nonsense"; it is just pointing out that the scientific-sounding claims are factually wrong. Maybe the problem is that you don't understand enough physics or chemistry to understand the explanations given?

[John Cuthber]

15 hours ago, Who are you? said:

Ive seen that page but it's just a bunch of non evidence based bashing..

Unsurprisingly, the rationalwiki page is rational.

You disagree with it.

Do you think there may be a valid deduction to me made from those two observation?

[Phi for All]

22 hours ago, Who are you? said:

I opened this discussion with this question to get answers not to have a battle of personalities with personal attacks. Please be mature. 

!

Moderator Note

Our #1 rule is civility. We attack ideas rationally, but try to leave the people who have them out of it.

I see no personal attacks. Every comment seems aimed at the topic, not at you personally. If you see any, please use the Report Post feature.

 

[Yetikick]

Interesting subject. Discovered this forum while also trying to look for some actual science for or against. Ok yes of course there’s Hudson’s science but that’s not really real science due to the fact that he’s not entirely competent in the first place. I also cannot find any science that contras the monatomic state of metal atoms theory. Could this be a whole area of undiscovered science? Of course it could. We certainly have a lot still to learn. Is it likely? That’s a very different question.

I also like the theory that monatomic particles could in fact be dark matter. It certainly fits somewhat and we have little other theory at this time. Again not very likely.

Will be interesting to see what we discover over the next 50 years, if I live that long.

[Strange]

8 hours ago, Yetikick said:

also like the theory that monatomic particles could in fact be dark matter.

Is there such a theory? Dark matter does not interact through the electromagnetic force. Atoms do.

 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Yetikick said:

Interesting subject. Discovered this forum while also trying to look for some actual science for or against. Ok yes of course there’s Hudson’s science but that’s not really real science due to the fact that he’s not entirely competent in the first place. I also cannot find any science that contras the monatomic state of metal atoms theory. Could this be a whole area of undiscovered science? Of course it could. We certainly have a lot still to learn. Is it likely? That’s a very different question.

No, it's not undiscovered science. It's crappy science, i.e. no credible evidence to support it. 

10 hours ago, Yetikick said:

I also like the theory that monatomic particles could in fact be dark matter. It certainly fits somewhat and we have little other theory at this time. Again not very likely.

Dark matter is not going to be anything that interacts electromagnetically. Not atoms.

[Yetikick]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

No, it's not undiscovered science. It's crappy science, i.e. no credible evidence to support it. 

Dark matter is not going to be anything that interacts electromagnetically. Not atoms.

Totally agree it’s most likely crappy science, however a lot of crappy science from many moons ago ended up being true. Plus we have no science to validate or dismiss this. So making a statement that it’s not undiscovered science is very non-scientific as you cannot prove that either.

 

i certainly don’t think monatomic particles are dark matter but then again stating dark matter doesn’t interact electromagnetically is also terrible science as we haven’t proven that yet either.

just as the OP said, it’s an interesting subject that probably needs some more research. Not sure why people are trying debunk the comments of the OP and myself as both of us have clearly stated that we don’t support these theories rather just interested in the subject of monatomic particles if there is some science related to them that we are presently unaware of.

[Phi for All]

44 minutes ago, Yetikick said:

Totally agree it’s most likely crappy science,

If you "totally agree" with swansont, you should drop the "most likely", since he didn't say that.

44 minutes ago, Yetikick said:

Plus we have no science to validate or dismiss this. So making a statement that it’s not undiscovered science is very non-scientific as you cannot prove that either.

We DO have science to validate that dark matter does not interact electromagnetically. This is the behavior that is observed, and why it's called dark. Also, science doesn't "prove" anything; that's a common misconception. Science gathers information in order to form the best supported explanations, and the best of those are called theories. Nothing is ever proven, but when observation is consistent you can make predictions that are the practical equivalent to proof.

44 minutes ago, Yetikick said:

I certainly don’t think monatomic particles are dark matter but then again stating dark matter doesn’t interact electromagnetically is also terrible science as we haven’t proven that yet either.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

The name dark matter refers to the fact that it does not appear to interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and is thus invisible (or 'dark') to the entire electromagnetic spectrum, making it extremely difficult to detect using usual astronomical equipment.^[1]

 

44 minutes ago, Yetikick said:

just as the OP said, it’s an interesting subject that probably needs some more research. Not sure why people are trying debunk the comments of the OP and myself as both of us have clearly stated that we don’t support these theories rather just interested in the subject of monatomic particles if there is some science related to them that we are presently unaware of.

I think people on a science site will always try to debunk bad science. It also doesn't seem honest that you're arguing for bad science but claiming not to support it, and also not studying the basics of what you're arguing for. It was obviously a scam to rip people off selling snake oil colloidal gold cures, it's not a theory, and it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with mainstream science.

I think you're the only one here who is presently unaware of the science involved. Sorry, but that's what I observe.

 

[Strange]

50 minutes ago, Yetikick said:

Plus we have no science to validate or dismiss this.

Yes we do. The only way you could get monoatomic gold would be as a thin (and hot) gas.

As soon as it cools and forms a liquid or solid, it is no longer monatomic. Claims that it is are just mumbo-jumbo.

You can't claim that science (eg the study of the physical and chemical properties of matter) has to be on an equal footing with made-up fairy tales. ("Ah, but it might be true" is just not a rational argument.)

50 minutes ago, Yetikick said:

stating dark matter doesn’t interact electromagnetically is also terrible science as we haven’t proven that yet either.

It's, you know, part of the definition of dark matter. We see that it doesn't appear to interact electromagnetically.

50 minutes ago, Yetikick said:

just as the OP said, it’s an interesting subject that probably needs some more research.

Why does some made up nonsense need more research? If there was some evidence behind it, then maybe it would be worth looking into.

But not when it is just nonsense made up by some random idiot.

50 minutes ago, Yetikick said:

Not sure why people are trying debunk the comments of the OP and myself as both of us have clearly stated that we don’t support these theories rather just interested in the subject of monatomic particles if there is some science related to them that we are presently unaware of.

The discussion seems to go:

"Hey tell me about the science"

*SCIENCE*

"Yeah. But you don't really know it's wrong"

*SCIENCE. LOTS OF SCIENCE*

"But there isn't really any evidence against it, is there"

*EVIDENCE. AND SCIENCE. AND MORE SCIENCE*

"But there could be something to it"

*HEAD. DESK.*

Edited April 27, 2018 by Strange

[Yetikick]

Yes I totally understand the science and knowledge we presently have for dark matter. But let’s be fair here. We haven’t actually had any dark matter to test in a lab environment and any dark matter we have tried to detect is so far away from us that in reality we don’t really have a clue about it yet. It could still be absolutely anything.

As for nonesense needing research comment. Yes the monatomic Gold theory etc by Hudson is a load of balcony. I’m not talking about that. Of course is nonesense. Of course monatomic Gold or any other monatomic element won’t make people superhuman. I have no interest in his theories. I do have an interest in monatomic states of elements though. And being that we as a race are clearly very naive still who knows what we’ll learn as time progresses.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Yetikick said:

Yes I totally understand the science and knowledge we presently have for dark matter. But let’s be fair here. We haven’t actually had any dark matter to test in a lab environment and any dark matter we have tried to detect is so far away from us that in reality we don’t really have a clue about it yet. It could still be absolutely anything.

Actually, it is all around us. We know a lot about the amounts and distribution of matter in the solar system, the galaxy and the observable universe. 

Given the amount of dark matter that we know must be present, we also know that if it does interact electromagnetically it must only do so very, very weakly. There are (at least) two lines of evidence for this. One is simply the fact we can't see it. The other is that it behaves (in terms of its distribution) like something that only interacts gravitationally - if it interacted strongly then it would tend to form "clumps" and structures in the same way that matter does.

There is nothing particularly special about that: neutrinos do not interact electromagnetically either.

[Yetikick]

Yeah I get that. Where can I find the evidence that dark matter is all around us?

[Strange]

Just now, Yetikick said:

Yeah I get that. Where can I find the evidence that dark matter is all around us?

You should probably start a new thread but ...

Quote

The visible disk of the Milky Way Galaxy is embedded in a much larger, roughly spherical halo of dark matter. The dark matter density drops off with distance from the galactic center. 

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

Quote

The average density of dark matter near the solar system is approximately 1 proton-mass for every 3 cubic centimeters, which is roughly 6x10^-28 kg/cm³. The actual density might be a little lower or higher, but this is the right order of magnitude.

Based on this number, we can work out the total mass of dark matter within the radius of Earth's orbit around the sun: for an orbital radius of 100 million km, we get a total of 2.3x10¹²kg of dark matter within the Earth's orbit. 

http://cdms.berkeley.edu/Education/DMpages/FAQ/question36.html

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

You should probably start a new thread but ...

Ye, probably, but why isn't dark matter just assumed to be gravitons?

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Ye, probably, but why isn't dark matter just assumed to be gravitons?

Because they are massless.

And dark matter is "cold" (ie. not moving anywhere near light speed). 

And there is no evidence gravitons exist.

But apart from that ...

Edited April 27, 2018 by Strange

[Phi for All]

46 minutes ago, Yetikick said:

Yes I totally understand the science and knowledge we presently have for dark matter.

Listen, please. This is a bit silly. You've shown that the above statement is far from true. 

You don't need to be defensive about ignorance in a particular topic, you just need to do everything in your power to banish it. Pretending to already have the knowledge teaches you nothing. This is a place for questions about science, and discussions shouldn't reinforce bad habits. Science is perfectly fine saying "We don't know", but NOT about things we do know quite a lot about. The fact that YOU don't know it shouldn't be a sign that nobody does.

[Yetikick]

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

You should probably start a new thread but ...

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

http://cdms.berkeley.edu/Education/DMpages/FAQ/question36.html

Is this very theoretical though. Dark matter science is pretty poor being that we aren’t technological enough to even detect it yet?

i think the point in trying to make is there’s a lot we have yet to discover. I generally agree with science as it stands right now but then again once upon a time Einstein’s theories were totally accepted and we now know that this is no longer the case in some respects.

we simply have such little knowledge on things like dark matter that in time what we believe now may I fact end up being totally wrong, or correct for that matter.

ill always remain open to new ideas and theories, even some that are far fetched. Ok maybe not as far fetched as the crap Hudson says is possible.