What's new
By:
TerraForums - Carnivorous Plant Community

Welcome to TerraForums — a long-running carnivorous plant community established in 2001. Register for free to join the conversation, ask questions, and connect with growers from around the world.

Here goeas another one

Share this page

[b said:
Quote[/b] (lol @ Dec. 08 2005,4:58)]No to what Nrbelex? Are you able to speak in full sentences or not?
Click to expand...
No to the entire quote. If we're bringing in pseudoscience, is bad grammar really all that important?
smile_l_32.gif


~ Brett
 
OK, what the heck does water have to do with ORME's?  The answer is it doesn't.  And if you were able to understand what I just typed on this page you would know that I JUST said that ORMEs haven't been scientificly proven or disproven, so there is no reason to debate that aspect of it.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]The only common ground we can possibly reach at this time is that there is not enough scientific data to prove or disprove it at this time, and I hope that scientificly we in this discussion wont try to take it any further in any direction pro or con, because it would be mostly opinionative at that point.
Click to expand...

I was providing evidence that there is enough proof to discredit these scams. When you start a topic with the name "Here goeas another one, Philosopher's stone, manna, ...", what were you expecting? A nice conversation about how great these "molecules" are? It was opinionative from the start when you made the topic title.

~ Brett
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (lol @ Dec. 08 2005,5:08)]OK, what the heck does water have to do with ORME's? The answer is it doesn't. And if you were able to understand what I just typed on this page you would know that I JUST said that ORMEs haven't been scientificly proven or disproven, so there is no reason to debate that aspect of it.
Click to expand...
Well here's one of the sites that trys to explain what water has to do with ORMEs. Don't ask me what they're trying to say... you're the translator here.

~ Brett
 
As I've said before.. Helium is a monatomic element.  Is it an example of a "new form (phase) of matter with entirely different physical properties from normal elements"?  No, it is a gas.  Does it give you superpowers?  No, not unless sounding like Mickey Mouse is considered out-of-this-world.
 
There would and is obviously OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLYOBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLYOBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY , and should be blatantly obvious that there is a difference between a single helium atom and a single gold or heavy metal atom. Lord....

Anyway, here is a very indepth look into why/why not ORMEs can or can't be monoatomic.

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/what.htm

Pretty thurough.
 
By definition an element cannot be present in two different phases at identical temperature and pressure, since these are the two factors that govern whether something is a solid, liquid, gas, plasma, etc.
 
There is no reason to say that metallic elements can't exist in monatomic form, but there is also little reason to make the claim that this is a new phase of matter. I also still don't see any reason for the claims of medicinal effects. The claims made just don't make sense; supposedly some sort of 'alchemic' chemistry is supposed to work on these ORMEs, at slower speeds and rates than in 'ordinary' chemistry, and yet that somehow makes ORMEs powerful healing devices and superconductors? It says here that "It has been observed that the valence electrons of monatomic elements are unavailable for chemical reactions. This means that monatomic atoms are chemically inert and have many of the physical properties of ceramic materials." It also says that "In general, a metallic element is physically stable and is a relatively good conductor of both heat and electricity and is usually chemically active. (Metals typically rust and/or corrode.) To the contrary, monatomic atoms of the same element behaves more like a ceramic in that they are generally poor conductors of both heat and electricity and are chemically inert." Then how does it heal your DNA, fight AIDS and display superconductivity?
Besides, ceramic compounds are polymers, or at least not monatoms, so the whole thing is full of misnomers.
~Joe

PS - Possibly not true, Nep_grower; many chemically identical polymers can exist in different phases under the same conditions, if they are formed differently. Also, I think that suspensions and gels may dispute that generality. But in any event my guess is that David Hudson named it a new phase of matter when it really isn't.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (lol @ Dec. 09 2005,1:44)]There would and is obviously  OBVIOUSLY  OBVIOUSLY  OBVIOUSLY  OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLYOBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLYOBVIOUSLY OBVIOUSLY , and should be blatantly obvious that there is a difference between a single helium atom and a single gold or heavy metal atom.  Lord....
Click to expand...
The article you posted claims 'monatomic' is a new phase of matter.  I am telling you that helium (as well as all the other noble gases) is a monatomic element in its natural state.  Now, is helium an example of a new, hitherto unknown state of matter?
 
State and phase are synonymous with respect to matter. Also, take a look at this:
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Because the valence electrons of monatomic atoms are unavailable, the atoms are unidentifiable. To detect a monatomic element requires that you first convert it from its monatomic state to its normal state to allow the element to be detected with conventional instrumentation. As a result, this phase of matter has existed as a stealth material right under the noses of scientists without detection until very recently.
Click to expand...
This is a baldfaced lie. You don't need to do jack with valence electrons to use spectroscopy to determine the elemental composition of matter. This statement might have been true 80 years ago, 60 years before David Hudson came along, but it is certainly not true of chemistry for the last half a century. There is no way we would have missed something this simple. This is what all these, "Nobody is studying it." claims are based on, and it's the weakest part of the story yet. I'm sorry, but you need to post a link from a credible source dated since 2000 before we continue. You have given nothing empirical to support your claim. You've read all these papers, so scroll down to the bibliography and tell us where the primary information came from. I'm tired of wading through all this mystical alchemy hoopla in search of studies that I know aren't there.
~Joe
 
your not going to convince anyone any differently than they already believe, so you may aswell stop trying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top