In his Dallas lecture David Hudson said:
“For those of you who are interested, did you know that NASA has learned that you can scrape tissue out of the checks of the astronauts, and put the equivalent of a lie detector instrument on the tissue and that when the astronaut is out there, you know, millions of light years away, that when he’s subjected to stress, that the cells instantaneously experience stress here on Earth even though they’re not in his body.”
Does this mean that NASA astronauts have been millions of light years away on their way to the moon or does it mean that David Hudson can be wrong about things?
The scientific method requires that we confirm David Hudson’s hypotheses. Just because David Hudson says that the ORMUS form of the transition elements is monatomic does not necessarily mean that they are monatomic.
David Hudson has not provided any evidence to prove his hypothesis that the ORMUS form of the transition elements is monatomic in every case. The only empirical evidence that David Hudson references is his observation that these elements must be monatomic because if they were larger than a single atom they would show up in x-ray diffraction spectroscopy because the 15 angstrom wavelength of the x-ray would have to hit the sample twice in a diatom or larger.
There is another condition, which might apply here though. A diatom with a conjoined or condensed nucleus and cooper-paired electrons might actually be smaller than a conventional gold monatom. I will explain what I mean later in this article.
I have not seen any evidence that the m-state materials are monatomic. Since they exist in nature at a reduced weight they must be in some hitherto unknown state. Since they cannot be assayed using electron based spectroscopy methods they must not have the unpaired electrons, which should give a reading. Hudson makes a statement to this effect in his patent:
In order to exhibit the properties, which are associated with bosons, i.e. superconductivity, tunneling, superfluidity and spin coherence, they must fit the criteria for bosons. Bosons all have an even number of sub-particles while fermions have an odd number of sub-particles. The smallest unit of gold atoms, which could be a boson, is a diatom.
Superfluidity, superconductivity and Josephson tunneling are bosonic properties. These phenomena do not exist in fermions. The distinction between bosons and fermions seems to be pretty well accepted by modern physicists. If only bosons can exhibit superfluidity and superconductivity then it seems reasonable that the magical white powder of gold which Hudson says is a single unit superconductor would have to be a boson. This means that it must have an even number of protons, neutrons and electrons.
Since the elements are defined by the number of protons they have (differing numbers of neutrons defines isotopes of a given element and differing numbers of electrons defines ions) then gold, with an uneven number of protons, cannot be both monatomic and bosonic. If it had one more proton it would be mercury, if it had one less it would be platinum.
Using this logic, the ORMUS elements which could be monatomic would be nickel, ruthenium, palladium, osmium, platinum and mercury because these elements have an even number of protons. The ORMUS elements which could not have a true monatomic form would be cobalt, copper, rhodium, silver, iridium and gold.
Hudson claims, and others have confirmed, that the ORMUS form of all of these elements exists in nature. He also claims that, in certain circumstances, they “look like” other elements. He said that the m-state gold, in various stages of its manufacture, looked like iron, silica and aluminum. Since the naturally occurring ORMUS elements have evaded detection by modern spectroscopy, ever since spectroscopy was invented, it seems reasonable to assume that they are masquerading as other elements.
They must also match the physical properties of the elements they are masquerading as. This means that ORMUS rhodium, for example, would measure as having a specific gravity similar to some lighter elements, if we accept Hudson’s 5/9 rule. But remember, the weight loss, which Hudson described in his patent, happened in the first heating and cooling cycle after the material was heated and washed with hydrogen gas. Does this process change the monatomic gold auride into monatomic mercury with the addition of an atom of hydrogen or, perhaps, two or more gold nuclei are conjoined in this process to form another bosonic configuration.
As I mentioned before, if these elements are single unit superconductors (that is if they are superconductors as a monatom or diatom) then this superconductive state requires that they be bosons rather than fermions. Here is a description of some of these bosonic properties from an American Institute of Physics web page:
“A superfluid is a liquid that flows without viscosity or inner friction. For a liquid to become superfluid, the atoms or molecules making up the liquid must be cooled or “condensed” to the point at which they all occupy the same quantum state. A liquid of helium-3, an atom whose nucleus is made up of an odd number of particles, is a type of particle known as a fermion. Groups of fermions are not allowed to occupy the same quantum state.
By cooling the liquid to a low enough temperature, helium-3 atoms can pair up (left panel). The number of particles in each nucleus adds up to an even number, making it a type of particle known as a boson. Groups of bosons can fall into the same quantum state, and therefore superfluidity can be achieved. Helium-4 (middle panel), a boson, does not need to pair up to form a superfluid; groups of helium-4 atoms condense into the superfluid state at about 2 degrees above absolute zero. Superfluidity, especially the kind that exists in helium-3, is analogous to conventional low-temperature superconductivity, in which electrons flow through certain metals and alloys without resistance. In a superconductor (right panel), electrons, which are fermions, pair up in the metal crystal to form “Cooper pairs,” bosons which can then condense into a superconducting state.”
This quote with pictures can be found at http://www.aip.org/png/html/helium3.htm
Since both superconductivity and superfluidity have been observed as properties of ORMUS gold and since metallic gold is known to have an uneven number of protons and electrons the ORMUS gold must be a boson despite the fact that metallic gold monatom would be a fermion.
How might this happen? I can think of a couple of ways. One way is described in the quote above where two helium nuclei pair up to make a helium diatom with condensed nuclei. This might happen with element 79 (gold) as well. The condensed nuclei of such a gold diatom would have an even number of protons (158) and neutrons (236). This would make the diatomic gold a boson, which is capable of the bosonic behaviors of Bose-Einstein condensates, superconductors and superfluids.
The other possibility might be that the nucleus of a gold monatom would join with a hydrogen atom (for example) giving a condensed nucleus with 80 protons and 118 neutrons. Of course this would no longer be gold but would have become monatomic mercury 198 (which would be a boson because it has an even number of sub-particles).
In his Dallas lecture Hudson describes how m-state mercury can drop to metallic gold by heating it to red heat in the air. I am wondering if this door swings the other way too and the so-called monatomic gold is really monatomic mercury.
This would be one possible path for a fermion to become a boson but there is another. Since we are already talking about possible mechanisms of transmutation with the a priori assumption that nuclear transmutation is taking place in Hudson’s relatively low temperature chemical process, it does not seem like much of a stretch to consider that two gold atoms are undergoing nuclear fusion and that we really have a monatomic form of element 158.
Of course the periodic chart currently does not go up much beyond element 110 but there has been some scientific speculation that there might be another plateau of stable elements as atomic numbers get higher than a certain point.
Ordinary type I and II superconductivity requires a solid matrix in which the electrons cooper-pair up and become bosons. With single unit superconductivity this solid matrix would, theoretically, not need to exist. It would, therefore, be possible to have liquid or gaseous superconductors.
In the Paranormal Observations article, Gary suggested that the ORMUS elements are type III superconductors because they exhibit the Meissner effect without being in a rigid matrix. He suggests that the thermal jitter, which prevents superconductivity at high temperatures in a metal matrix, is overcome by cooling the metal to cryogenic temperatures. This thermal jitter in the matrix would not be a problem in a single unit (monatom or diatom) superconductor.
Magnetic levitation ORMUS traps depend on the superconductive Meissner-effect behavior of the ORMUS elements in water. Water is diamagnetic and it levitates in magnetic fields. In this model diamagnetism and the Meissner effect might turn out to be one and the same thing.
A colleague has observed that ORMUS made from metal using ozone and pH swing is very sensitive to magnetic fields. He has many stories how these liquids exhibit antimagnetic behavior when exposed to moving magnetic fields. He has reported that the more energetic of these substances would sometimes invoke an out of body experience from a single whiff of them after they have been stimulated with a moving magnet. He frequently reported difficulty in containing these really energetic ORMUS materials.
My most profound ORMUS experiences resulted from ingesting ORMUS materials made from metal that had “escaped” from proximity to a moving magnetic field. Other researchers have also noticed difficulty in keeping higher energy ORMUS products confined to containers.
In summation, these behaviors suggest that we have single unit superconductors. Single unit superconductors would have to be bosons. Bosons would have to have an even number of protons, neutrons and electrons. Condensed matter, i.e. a gold diatom, would provide a mechanism that would tie together many of the strange properties we have observed in the ORMUS materials. Superconductivity, superfluidity, tunneling, biological quantum coherence, diamagnetism and the incredible shrinking diatom (x-ray fluorescence invisibility) might all be explained with this theory.
There is another related fact that Hudson does not adequately address in any source I can find. This is the fact of the weight change of these elements when they go from metal to m-state. Hudson has observed this as have Jim, the Essene and others. What are the physics of this phenomenon?
In August of 1996 Matti Pitkanen wrote me of a phenomena described in a Scientific American article which might help to understand this. Matti wrote:
One could hypothesize that the loss of weight when these metals go to their m-state is analogous to the change of state the electron goes through when it is Cooper paired. Since most of the mass of an atom is in the nucleons it seems very unlikely that the Cooper pairing of electrons would be responsible for this loss of weight. If, on the other hand, the nucleons of two identical atoms were also Cooper paired this would allow them to become a Bose-Einstein condensate with the properties of a single atom. This diatom might assume the weight of a single atom.
Gary suggested that the Scientific American article Matti is referring to provides support for his theory that various levels of electron Cooper pairing exist. Gary wrote:
“A spinning superdeformed nucleus slows down in discrete steps, each time emitting gamma rays, or highly energetic photons. The emissions produce a characteristic band of energy spikes all spaced equally apart. The surprise: the spectra of some different superdeformed nuclei were almost identical.”
I suggest to you that these discrete stepped emissions are the result of rupturing the valence circuits, one pair at a time, releasing their circuit energy (as an emission). Since the emission energy is a function of the energy stored in the valence circuit (and so not constant), when they are observed, as reported, to be the nearly the same for different elements, then this is only because the atoms were all charged in their circuits to nearly the same energy level; this is most probably a consequence of conditions imposed by the instrumentation environment that the atoms were placed in, and were observed under.”
I suspect that this whole issue of electron and nucleon pairing is crucial to understanding the nature of the ORMUS elements. While it is clear that these elements can chemically bond in the metallic and near metallic state it is not at all clear that they can chemically bond in the m-state as they occur in nature. We need to design some experimental method to clear this up, as it is central to our understanding of these materials.
I see one of our next problems to be figuring out how to determine whether the ORMUS elements are monatoms, diatoms or something else, using conventional scientific instrumentation.
It would be nice if we could make this kind of determination using basic chemistry but it is beginning to become apparent that no one really understands the chemistry of the Hudson process on some very fundamental levels. There is one issue that neither Hudson nor anyone else has addressed, as far as I know.
A monatom (or diatom) is too small to be visible yet we clearly have a white (or gray or red-brown) powder that is visible. The particles of this powder are clearly visible but, in the case of the white powder of gold and iridium, are not easily soluble using strong acids. This would suggest that strong chemical bonds are active in the visible white powder particles.
If chemical bonds are holding these particles of pure gold together then they cannot be monatomic gold. They cannot be diatomic gold either. How many gold atoms must be bound together before you get a visible particle?
In one of his un-transcribed lectures, David Hudson quotes from one of the scientific papers he uses for reference. (I wish I had the exact quote and the lecture reference but I don’t and it might take days to find it.) The quote was probably from one of the Physical Review papers on monatomic transition elements. As I recall, the quote suggested that monatomic gold could only exist as a gas.
If this is true, what is it that we see when we see a small white particle of ORMUS gold? What is the bond that holds these particles together? Is it a chemical bond, a nuclear bond or something we have never heard of? We obviously need a theory, which will clarify how these seemingly contradictory facts can all be true. The hypothesis, which I would suggest might reconcile these contradictions, is that the bosonic unit (that is the monatom or diatom) is not what we are seeing at all. Rather, what we are seeing is the cage or box that the bosonic unit is held in.
I suspect that virtually all chemical manipulation of the unassayable ORMUS elements is actually just manipulation of the particular molecular cage it is in.
If these elements are superconductors which exhibit diamagnetic properties in water then they would have to be “single unit” superconductors rather than matrix superconductors like we are used to. A “single unit” superconductor would have to be a boson with fully paired electrons AND fully paired nucleons as well.
The “preference” that these elements seem to have for hanging out inside molecular cages could be that these cages provide some shielding from magnetic and other forces. As single unit superconductors they would tend to retreat from magnetic fields into any structure which gave them some shielding from those fields. My colleague noticed this when he found that a rubber banded stack of microscope slides would tend to collect ORMUS in the tight space between the slides.
He took advantage of this effect when he would put a sealed bottle of aluminum oxide desiccant beads in the shielded container with his ORMUS products. He claims that these beads provide a tight comfy place for the ORMUS to hang out and that the ORMUS “gets into” the sealed container and changes the color of the indicator beads while the factory seal on the bottle is still intact. (I have seen this happen.) The sealed bottle of desiccant beads actually gains weight as the beads became saturated with ORMUS.
I would like to suggest that the ORMUS affinity for tight spaces also holds as an affinity for the very tight spaces inside molecules. While in this tight inner molecular space I would expect the Meissner “field” to exercise some control over the behavior and configuration of the molecule it is associated with.
Dr. Martin Chaplin who is the Professor of Applied Science at South Bank University in London has a well-described theory that water is generally composed of icosahedral water clusters. You can read more about this theory at http://www.martin.chaplin.btinternet.co.uk/intro.html.
These water molecules would, in essence, be like molecular geodesic domes which would provide a nice comfy inner space for the ORMUS unit to chill out. These water molecules with their ORMUS resident would also be available for other chemical bonds. When bonded with hydroxide radicals they would become visible as a precipitate.
As I suggested before, the ORMUS resident in the geodesic water molecule might exercise some control over the structure and behavior of the entire molecule through subtle energetic forces like the Meissner effect.
Is there any evidence that such changes in the structure and behavior of water take place in nature?
Of course there is. We have all seen pictures of Dr. Emoto’s water crystals, which have been shaped by music, prayer, pollution or intent. “Structured water” is the buzzword of the new age water industry. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho believes that the structuring of water is the basis of homeopathy. Here is a quote from one of her articles on this subject:
“In the mid-1990s, quantum physicists Del Giudice and Preparata and other colleagues in University of Milan, in Italy, argued that quantum coherent domains measuring 100nm in diameter could arise in pure water. They show how the collective vibrations of the water molecules in the coherent domain eventually become phase-locked to the fluctuations of the global electromagnetic field. In this way, long-lasting, stable oscillations could be maintained in the water. One way in which ‘memory’ might be stored in water is through the excitation of long-lasting coherent oscillations specific to the substances in the homeopathic remedy dissolved in water. Interaction of water molecules with other molecules changes the collective structure of water, which would in turn determine the specific coherent oscillations that will develop. If these become stabilised and maintained by phase coupling between the global field and the excited molecules, then, even when the dissolved substances are diluted away, the water may still carry the coherent oscillations that can ‘seed’ other volumes of water on dilution. The discovery that dissolved substances form increasingly large clusters is compatible with the existence of a coherent field in water that can transmit attractive resonance between the molecules when the oscillations are in phase, leading to clumping in dilute solutions. As the cluster of molecules increases in size, its electromagnetic signature is correspondingly amplified, reinforcing the coherent oscillations carried by the water.” [http://www.i-sis.org.uk/water3.php]
In “Cytoplasmic Gel States and Ordered Water: Possible Roles in Biological Quantum Coherence” – (http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/water2.html) Stuart Hameroff suggests that quantum coherence within the microtubule is related to the structuring of water:
“Here we consider three proposals in which ordered water may play a role in biological quantum coherence essential for living systems and consciousness: 1) quantum optical coherence in microtubule inner cores (“super-radiance” and “self-induced transparency”); 2) cellular “vision”; 3) isolation of microtubules from environmental decoherence.”
The coherent changes that Hameroff and Ho are talking about must be controlled by something. I am postulating that the ORMUS unit inside some water molecules is the director of these coherent changes. I imagine that the ORMUS is like the driver of a radio-dispatched taxi. Using this example, the coherent communication, which we think happens between ORMUS elements, could give all of the taxi drivers in a city instruction to change lanes at the same time.
When the structure of water changes, work is being done. The taxi drivers have to tug on their steering wheels in order to change lanes. Where does the energy for this work come from? How does the intent of someone praying over some water get translated into a change of the structure of that water? How does a thought make coherent changes in all of the water in the body? These are all mechanisms that I think ORMUS theory will eventually help to describe.
Several researchers, who have been doing ORMUS chemistry for a long time, have noticed that there are similarities between the chemical interactions of the metallic forms and the chemical interactions of the ORMUS forms of these elements. They have also noticed differences. While the same chemical reactions may occur with the ORMUS form they are sometimes slower or less robust than the corresponding chemical reaction with the metallic form. Sometimes many repetitions are required to get the ORMUS form to do what we want it to do. This is quite noticeable in David Hudson’s patent.
In my hypothesis, the difference would be accounted for because with the metals there is a direct chemical interaction with the transition elements. With the ORMUS form, on the other hand, the molecular cage that the ORMUS unit is in mediates the chemical interaction. All of these chemical processes are taking place in some sort of water-based solution. Since water is already the mediator of these chemical processes it is not that big a stretch to postulate that the difference is that the ORMUS form is in a water cage while the metallic form is not. The “hydroxide” ORMUS precipitate would, in this model, be a way of aggregating ORMUS/water cages so that they could be visibly isolated and concentrated.
This model might also provide a greater understanding of other interesting properties of water. As I mentioned earlier in this article, water is diamagnetic. This means that it is slightly repelled by magnetic fields. My theory suggests a number of questions, which might be answered empirically.
· Is this diamagnetism a form of superconductive magnetic levitation of the ORMUS/water cage molecule?
· Might changes in the Meissner “field” bring about corresponding changes in the structure of water?
· Does quantum coherence between the ORMUS units modulate the Meissner effect?
I think that the Bosonic ORMUS and water-cage models might provide a better framework for understanding the chemistry of these elements.
While we need to look at the ORMUS elements and their properties through the eyes of chemists but also we need to look at them through the eyes of physicists and mystics as well. Perhaps we will discover that all of this matter we see around us is just standing wave interference patterns in a sea of energy and the energy is the breath of God.
Let’s not limit our ability to see beyond the realm of appearances by imposing the definitions of one agricultural chemist to these phenomena. Since the word “ORMUS” has no preexisting scientific meaning we can apply it to this whole class of unassayable materials without fostering rigid thinking. Let’s move on now to describing and naming the finer distinctions of these substances.