White Powder Gold

[Saint Germain]

Also, person A and person B will both agree on what person A is experiencing, as long as they both know how relativity works. It's not subjective in that sense.

 

Not sure they'd agree on what A is experiencing, since the notion of time also changes things like simultaneity - but if they sit down and "translate" one's experience from A to B - they will understand the other's perspective (if it's what you meant by "as long as they know how relativity works").

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

 

Experience still depends on one's reference point.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Saint Germain

[Sisyphus]

Not sure they'd agree on what A is experiencing, since the notion of time also changes things like simultaneity but if they sit down and "translate" one's experience from A to B - they will understand the other's perspective (if it's what you meant by "as long as they know how relativity works).

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity

 

Experience still depends on one's reference point.

 

Yes, of course that's what I mean. And though the math is slightly more complicated, it's not fundamentally different than "translating" to the perspective of someone standing next to you. There's nothing mysterious about it.

[Saint Germain]

Wow, St. Germain you are some piece of work. This should be it for me in this thread unless you say something even more outlandish than the likes of, "Karl Popper doesn't believe in positivist approach."

 

I must say I don't know about Karl Popper - so I googled "positivism Karl Popper" and this page came out.

 

This is a page from Trinity College - and it looked reliable.

 

The same page states: He articulated his own view of science, and his criticisms of the positivists, in his first work, published under the title Logik der Forschung in 1934. The book - which he was later to claim rang the death knell for logical positivism - attracted more attention than Popper had anticipated, and he was invited to lecture in England in 1935.

 

If you provide another link with another explanation, I will read it, promised.

 

Furthermore, I doubt you watched the video, but I hope you enjoyed picking out the semantics. I also liked how you totally ignored that Stephen Hawking used the positivist approach in his "Origins of the Universe Lecture".

 

I did, very interesting.

 

I could imagine one would feel funny ridiculing a statement and then finding that the statement is from one of the most brilliant philosophers. You must have felt worse when you realised the statement was also cited in one of the most famous lectures of all time by one of the most brilliant minds of our time.

 

Definition of positivism: A philosophy asserting the primacy of observation in assessing the truth of statements of fact and holding that metaphysical and subjective arguments not based on observable data are meaningless.

 

I actually feel good about not needing data or proof to deal with the world. I deal a lot with intuition, which also works in the absence of proof or data. Again, positivism is a philosophy, a way of approaching the world to study it - not a scientific truth to convince all. So I don't see why this is a problem at all besides difference of opinion.

 

Finally, when you said, "If the notions presented to you are too strange for you to accept, there is no problem about that at all, they are strange."

 

You should have used a semi-colon between "all" and "they" at the end of that sentence, or you could formulate them into two separate sentences. However, what you did was a comma-splice. Just thought I would point that out for you.

 

Yeah, I'm not familiar with English grammar, thank you for pointing this out.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Yes, of course that's what I mean. And though the math is slightly more complicated, it's not fundamentally different than "translating" to the perspective of someone standing next to you. There's nothing mysterious about it.

 

Well, I find it fascinating that things happening in one perspective can be perceived differently in another.

 

There is a good illustrated example here

 

Otherwise, yes, the math is complex.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Saint Germain
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

Well, I find it fascinating that things happening in one perspective can be perceived differently in another.

 

 

That's the definition of perspective.

[Saint Germain]

That's the definition of perspective.

 

Hahaha, true.

[swansont]

I agree.

 

I'm sorry, but I do not follow what you mean about "the first one" - you mean my friend working in cyclotrons and needing to deal with high speeds, therefore relativity?

 

No. The contention that there is no such thing as absolute reality. We agree on what happens. We don't agree on when or how far away the event was.

[Saint Germain]

No. The contention that there is no such thing as absolute reality. We agree on what happens. We don't agree on when or how far away the event was.

 

The assertion was about objective reality - not absolute.

 

Objective being independent of the observer.

 

I agree with your remark if one uses strictly relativity - in which "what happens" is the same (although this is disputable as sequences of events are not the same) - and what changes is sequence (time), measures (space), and also masses.

 

It's mainly quantum theory that suggests that reality is - to a certain degree - observer-dependent.

 

As already suggested:

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'Espagnat

 

"Observation plays a decisive role in the event and . . . the reality varies, depending upon whether we observe it or not." - Werner Heisenberg

 

"Every interpretation of quantum mechanics involves consciousness." - Euan Squires

 

"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again: it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." - Eugene Wigner

 

"The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them ...is impossible” - Werner Heisenberg

[swansont]

The assertion was about objective reality - not absolute.

 

I was quoting you. You said absolute.

 

Objective being independent of the observer.

 

I agree with your remark if one uses strictly relativity - in which "what happens" is the same (although this is disputable as sequences of events are not the same) - and what changes is sequence (time), measures (space), and also masses.

 

It's mainly quantum theory that suggests that reality is - to a certain degree - observer-dependent.

 

As already suggested:

 

"The doctrine that the world is made up of objects whose existence is independent of human consciousness turns out to be in conflict with quantum mechanics and with facts established by experiment." - Bernard d'Espagnat

 

"Observation plays a decisive role in the event and . . . the reality varies, depending upon whether we observe it or not." - Werner Heisenberg

 

"Every interpretation of quantum mechanics involves consciousness." - Euan Squires

 

"When the province of physical theory was extended to encompass microscopic phenomena through the creation of quantum mechanics, the concept of consciousness came to the fore again: it was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." - Eugene Wigner

 

"The idea of an objective real world whose smallest parts exist objectively in the same sense as stones or trees exist, independently of whether or not we observe them ...is impossible” - Werner Heisenberg

 

I agree, these are a different issue than relativity. But collapsing a wave function because of experimental observation is not the same as different versions of reality — once you have made the measurement/observation, the system is in that state. The real problem here is the attempt to interpret QM in classical terms.

[One of the Few]

Honestly, everything they claimed is one big brown pile, and you mentioned it had gone invisible? The energy to "make it go to a different dimension." would require impossible amounts of energy.

[Saint Germain]

Honestly, everything they claimed is one big brown pile,

 

I'm glad that you also trust how perfect and complete your worldview is to be able to call things "big brown pile" with such certitude.

 

and you mentioned it had gone invisible?

 

No, did not mention that.

 

The energy to "make it go to a different dimension." would require impossible amounts of energy.

 

I'm actually curious about this, how can you calculate this required energy? (really)

 

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I was quoting you. You said absolute.

 

Mistake from me then - I probably meant "absolute time and absolute space"

 

I agree, these are a different issue than relativity. But collapsing a wave function because of experimental observation is not the same as different versions of reality — once you have made the measurement/observation, the system is in that state.

 

Where did I say different versions of reality? Although some serious scientists do support the multiverse theory.

 

When I mean by subjective is that it is - to a degree - dependent of you (the observer) - not independent. Most scientists agree that it has no sense to separate the observer and the observed.

 

In other words, observing isn't innocent or passive, it is active.

 

We can even go further and say that what you think matters - and experiments made from labs such the PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) show a very direct example of this when they clearly demonstrated that intention influenced Random Event Generators working with quantum processes.

 

They did their research for more than 25 years, and eventually PEAR closed its doors in Feb 2007 "If people do not believe the results already, it's unlikely they ever will. It is time for this work to be continued by a new generation" said the leaders of the program Drs Jahn & Dunne

 

The real problem here is the attempt to interpret QM in classical terms.

 

Scientists like David Bohm (originator of the holographic model) - suggests there is a need of a new order - and that we shouldn't try to accommodate Quantum Theory with classical physics (the same way accommodations were made with Ptolemaic epicycles).

 

This is explained here from an excerpt of the book "wholeness and the implicate order"

Edited December 19, 2009 by Saint Germain
Consecutive posts merged.

[phantom]

Let me remind you that it HAS been analyzed and the studies tell us "what you are looking at will laugh at you - I will show up as different matters, change weight".

 

I thought it was claimed that one of the amazing properties of Mfkzt aka "white powder of gold" was its ability to loose weight when heated.

[Saint Germain]

I thought it was claimed that one of the amazing properties of Mfkzt aka "white powder of gold" was its ability to loose weight when heated.

 

Yes, this has been measured with TGA (thermogravimetric analysis).

[phantom]

Yes, this has been measured with TGA (thermogravimetric analysis).

 

I was wondering how the ancient Egyptians could have figured this out thousands of years ago without a TGA analyzor. Wouldn't it be possible just to heat or cool the white powder of gold and show the gain or loss of weight? If the white powder of gold looses weight when heated it should require further investigations to determine why the material levitates.

[Saint Germain]

I was wondering how the ancient Egyptians could have figured this out thousands of years ago without a TGA analyzor.

 

We have to separate the analysis from the use.

 

We know pretty much all traditions had knowledge about this powder, its use and its effects of humans. It doesn't mean they knew all the results of all the measurements that can be performed on it. One does not need to have measurements to engage in the use.

 

Wouldn't it be possible just to heat or cool the white powder of gold and show the gain or loss of weight? If the white powder of gold looses weight when heated it should require further investigations to determine why the material levitates.

 

Yes, you could do that, but it gives you only relations for specific weight relative to the temperatures.

With TGA - you get the evolution of the weight when the temperature changes.

 

And besides this, I don't know about the levitation of the powder - I have not personally witnessed it, or heard such a thing from someone I know. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, but I can't give you comments of this from my experience.

[insane_alien]

oh come on, really, you must know this stuff is utter crap.

 

there is absolutely nothing to support it. its always anecdotes for someone who knows someone who seen it maybe.

 

if it really did exist then it would be more widely known about. put up some evidence or get the hell out of here.

[DrP]

oh come on, really, you must know this stuff is utter crap.

 

there is absolutely nothing to support it. its always anecdotes for someone who knows someone who seen it maybe.

 

if it really did exist then it would be more widely known about. put up some evidence or get the hell out of here.

 

Seconded! I've been following this thread for a few weeks now (why!? I hear you ask!!! - I just do not know!!) - It is obviously rubbish. There is no way it becomes invisable or levetates - it IS complete BS!

 

 

"CLUNK!" - (That was the sound of my open mind closing up to this subject).

 

 

PS - Merry Christmas!

[phantom]

oh come on, really, you must know this stuff is utter crap.

 

True, but you have to understand that some people are “true believers” whose purpose is to “spread the word” which is what the grand master is trying to do.

 

The phenomenon is quite well known but is not understood by many people. The claimed use of some thermographic analyzer is misleading. The only scientific instrument used was an analytical balance.

 

The original story is this: Some white powder (now called the “white powder of gold”) was collected from the carbons and splatter shield of an older type emission spectrograph which was used for detection of elements in “ghost gold”. This white powder was weighed and then heated. When the sample was hot it was weighed again and it was determined that the powder “lost weight”. After the hot sample was removed from the balance pan, they also observed that some of this magic ormus had been transferred to the balance pan causing it to levitate also. This led Hudson and his incompetent chemist to conclude that they were dealing with a superconductor and a monopole because the weight loss was attributed to repulsion of the earth’s magnetic field. From this experiment they then came to the conclusion that the building blocks of the Great Pyramid were levitated into place using this “white powder of gold”. It didn’t take much after that to also conclude that they were now dealing with anti-gravity and ancient spaceships.

 

The explanation is that when a sample is weighed it must be at the ambient temperature of the balance. A sample that is warmer than then balance will cause lift on the pan due to convection currents and will appear to have “lost weight” and levitate. Samples colder than the balance pan (whether or not they were cooled in an inert atmosphere) will appear to “gain weight” because the surrounding air is denser.

 

Some people sure can jump to a lot of conclusions from “weighing error”.

[Saint Germain]

True, but you have to understand that some people are “true believers” whose purpose is to “spread the word” which is what the grand master is trying to do.

 

No, I am answering the initial question. If I wanted to convince you, I'd publish results of studies, but this is not my prerogative.

 

The phenomenon is quite well known but is not understood by many people. The claimed use of some thermographic analyzer is misleading. The only scientific instrument used was an analytical balance.

 

I wouldn't be so sure that it's only misinterpretations, and that the only scientific instrument used was an analytical balance.

 

The original story is this: Some white powder (now called the “white powder of gold”) was collected from the carbons and splatter shield of an older type emission spectrograph which was used for detection of elements in “ghost gold”. This white powder was weighed and then heated. When the sample was hot it was weighed again and it was determined that the powder “lost weight”. After the hot sample was removed from the balance pan, they also observed that some of this magic ormus had been transferred to the balance pan causing it to levitate also. This led Hudson and his incompetent chemist to conclude that they were dealing with a superconductor and a monopole because the weight loss was attributed to repulsion of the earth’s magnetic field. From this experiment they then came to the conclusion that the building blocks of the Great Pyramid were levitated into place using this “white powder of gold”. It didn’t take much after that to also conclude that they were now dealing with anti-gravity and ancient spaceships.

 

The explanation is that when a sample is weighed it must be at the ambient temperature of the balance. A sample that is warmer than then balance will cause lift on the pan due to convection currents and will appear to have “lost weight” and levitate. Samples colder than the balance pan (whether or not they were cooled in an inert atmosphere) will appear to “gain weight” because the surrounding air is denser.

 

Some people sure can jump to a lot of conclusions from “weighing error”.

 

The facts and interpretation are a bit distorted.

 

Especially with the "incompetent chemist", and the direct link with the pyramids - very well put, and I'm sure it will give a good laugh to the "oh come on, this is crap, everyone knows this, because if it were true, everyone would know about it" people, those who trust that the majority is right and well-informed.

 

Many years have passed since Hudson, and many more studies have been performed. I know for a fact that the people at www.treasurealchemy.com will publish something in the near future, including results of spectrography analysis (I think this is a first time studies of this type will be published).

 

If it really did exist then it would be more widely known about. put up some evidence or get the hell out of here.

 

You're right, this discussion has lasted long enough, we're going in loops of repetition.

 

All the best to all of you, have a great holiday time with your loved ones.

 

For the last time,

 

Saint Germain.

[toastywombel]

oh come on, really, you must know this stuff is utter crap.

 

there is absolutely nothing to support it. its always anecdotes for someone who knows someone who seen it maybe.

 

if it really did exist then it would be more widely known about. put up some evidence or get the hell out of here.

 

Perfection.

[jadedhills]

I have been taking white gold powder for approx 2 months, i was living with unbearable pain from damaged discs and spinal stenosis, prescribed Fentanyl, Tramadol and Oramorph, life was little fun and and no surcease from the pain, now i understand a broad spectrum of scientific principals, at an enthusiastic amateur level, my experience with the "White Gold" is positive reduction in resting pain levels, reduction in moving pain levels better sleep, and reduced pain meds between 25 and 50%, so if its bunkum, where is the Pain, i have MRI scans confirming the damage to my spine, i doubt wether anything would be able to heal it even on a genetic level, so i am not sure what is going on, I am a sceptical agnostic, about mostly everything and even when proved i am still not too sure as i could be perceiving things incorectly, people forget how subjective reality is, i have less pain, and am also running an experiment on some plants, will post results, thanks all.

 

Hi, not so sure where to post about this, so thought this would be the best spot. I was wondering if anyone knows about white powder gold(monoatomic gold) or any other M-state elements. I have been on many sites that claim "to put you in touch with god" or "heal any health problems you may have" is there any real research being conducted on this? I have yet to find a real website that has dealt with scientists or doctors. Does anyone know if taking it is harmful? Any inforomation would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

 

I just posted my experiences of White Gold Powder on the end of this forum, contact me if you have any questions, Email deleted by Moderator.

 

also the element acts as a ceramic that is why it acts as a superconducter in the body, supposedly, also they have found "Tubules" in cells that seem to act in the same way, maybe this is linked, i just dont know, but yes it works.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Phi for All
Email address removed