BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS
mce...@cnsvax.uwec.edu
BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS
A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the
FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O
--> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, etc.), as described in
the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis Kervran, [1972
Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the book "THE SECRET
LIFE OF PLANTS" [see Footnote.] by Peter Tompkins and
Christopher Bird, 1973:
(1) Obtain a good sample of plant seeds, all of the same
kind. [Some kinds might work better that others.]
(2) Divide the sample into two groups of equal weight
and number.
(3) Sprout one group in distilled water on filter paper
for three or four weeks.
(4) Separately incinerate both groups.
(5) Weigh the residue from each group. [The residue of
the sprouted group will usually weigh at least
SEVERAL PERCENT MORE than the other group.]
(6) Analyze quantitatively the residue of each group for
mineral content. [Some of the mineral atoms of the
sprouted group have been TRANSMUTED into heavier
mineral elements by FUSING with atoms of oxygen,
hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, etc..]
This experiment should NOT be repeated more than
necessary to prove the principle. It certainly should NOT
become a routine lab assignment in schools.
BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS occur ROUTINELY, even in our
own bodies. Ingesting a source of organic silicon (silicon
with carbon, such as "horsetail" extract, or radishes) can
SPEED HEALING OF BROKEN BONES via the reaction Si + C --> Ca,
(much faster than by merely ingesting the calcium directly).
Some MINERAL DEPOSITS in the ground are formed by micro-
organisms FUSING together atoms of silicon, carbon, nitrogen,
oxygen, hydrogen, etc.. The two reactions Si + C <--> Ca, by
micro-organisms, cause "STONE SICKNESS" in statues, building
bricks, etc.. The reaction N2 --> CO, catalysed by very hot
iron, creates a CARBON-MONOXIDE POISON HAZARD for welder
operators and people near woodstoves. Some bacteria can even
NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVITY!
ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE HAPPEN, IN SPITE OF the
currently accepted "laws" of physics.
Footnote: Chapters 19 and 20 are about "RADIONICS".
ENTIRE BOOK is FASCINATING!
Robert E. McElwaine
B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
Jeff Nelson
|> BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS
|>
|> A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the
|> FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O
|> --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, etc.), as described in
|> the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis Kervran, [1972
|> Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the book "THE SECRET
|> LIFE OF PLANTS" [see Footnote.] by Peter Tompkins and
|> Christopher Bird, 1973:
Yes, your experiment would indeed shed some light on transmutation if it
was sufficiently sealed, controlling the inward flow of the target elements.
However, my feeling is 1) you have either not performed this experiment or
not performed it with sufficient environmental control, and 2) undoubtedly
with sufficient control over the inflow of the resultant elements, you would
indeed find that transmutation was not occurring.
|> This experiment should NOT be repeated more than
|> necessary to prove the principle. It certainly should NOT
|> become a routine lab assignment in schools.
Why not? If it was true, and
|> BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS occur ROUTINELY, even in our
|> own bodies. ...
then what is the problem? Something like this, which is supposedly so common
and easy to test would make an excellent demonstration.
|> .... Ingesting a source of organic silicon (silicon
|> with carbon, such as "horsetail" extract, or radishes) can
|> SPEED HEALING OF BROKEN BONES via the reaction Si + C --> Ca,
|> (much faster than by merely ingesting the calcium directly).
I don't think that either the ingestion of calcium, silicon, or carbon elements
have been shown to noticeably effect bone healing. (As long as you're not
suffering from serious calcium deprivation that is).
|> Some MINERAL DEPOSITS in the ground are formed by micro-
|> organisms FUSING together atoms of silicon, carbon, nitrogen,
|> oxygen, hydrogen, etc.. The two reactions Si + C <--> Ca, by
|> micro-organisms, cause "STONE SICKNESS" in statues, building
|> bricks, etc.. The reaction N2 --> CO, catalysed by very hot
|> iron, creates a CARBON-MONOXIDE POISON HAZARD for welder
|> operators and people near woodstoves. Some bacteria can even
|> NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVITY!
Pretty outragous claims, stone sickness itself is easily explained by
standard chemical reactions with sulfur in rain, there is no need for
transmutation. Mineral deposits have been known (if I recall correctly)
to contain various complex molecules in certain concentrations due to
micro-organisms, but never have I heard of a geologist (who are very
sensative to such variations) suggesting such a formational method.
Carbon monoxide and other polutants are explained easily enough by
standard chemistry also, I recall the term "unconsumed hydrocarbons"
from somewhere.
As for bacteria neutralizing radioactivity, I'd like to see just what
reaction was supposed to occur to do this. Radioactivity has a large
number of sources, it's not just some big green morsel for some bacterium
to devour.
|> ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE HAPPEN, IN SPITE OF the
|> currently accepted "laws" of physics.
Ah, so it is an anti-establishment/science attitude again, is it.
Sounds like all these things and more happen because some guy claims
they support his theory without exploring other reasons thoroughly.
Originally, it was supposed that flies and maggots sprang from rotting
meat itself. But on isolating all the variables, another explanation
appeared, that seems to be the case here.
|> Footnote: Chapters 19 and 20 are about "RADIONICS".
Cool word, wonder what it means. Wonder if the author knows or if it's just a word.
- Jeff
E. Mark Ping
In article <1992Jun15....@cnsvax.uwec.edu> mce...@cnsvax.uwec.edu
writes:
>
>
> BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS
>
> A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the
> FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O
[stuff deleted]
> This experiment should NOT be repeated more than
> necessary to prove the principle. It certainly should NOT
> become a routine lab assignment in schools.
[more stuff deleted]
> Some MINERAL DEPOSITS in the ground are formed by micro-
> organisms FUSING together atoms of silicon, carbon, nitrogen,
> oxygen, hydrogen, etc.. The two reactions Si + C <--> Ca, by
> micro-organisms, cause "STONE SICKNESS" in statues, building
> bricks, etc.. The reaction N2 --> CO, catalysed by very hot
> iron, creates a CARBON-MONOXIDE POISON HAZARD for welder
> operators and people near woodstoves. Some bacteria can even
> NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVITY!
>
> ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE HAPPEN, IN SPITE OF the
> currently accepted "laws" of physics.
[yet even more stuff deleted]
> Robert E. McElwaine
> B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
Mr. McElwaine, this is FASCINATING. Have YOU done this experiment
YOURSELF? If so, can you share your RESULTS? IF *you* have checked this
out YOURSELF or you can point me to ANYONE who has, I would appreciate
hearing MORE from them.
(Note, a quick aside: Understand, I used the CAPS TEXT for emphasis. Now
isn't that annoying? I don't like to shout at anyone and everyone in
netland would appreciate your laying off the Caps characters. It makes you
appear as if you are attempting to convince us of the above ideas simply by
the emphasis of a few words. Please (this is *entirely* serious) simply
state your ideas and observations, etc. If there is validity to your
statements, we will actually be able to get it without the help of several
emphasized words.)
Taken from above:
> A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the
> FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O
I am a student at the University of California, at Berkeley. I just
finished my first year, and I intend to major in physics and computer
science. Now, I don't have a degree, understandably. However, I do adhere
to a little thing called the "scientific method." What this usually
requires is a great deal of experimentation to see if a *theory* fits what
are observed from a various experiments, and that this *theory* can be
verified over and over and over, etc. Very rarely can we call something a
"Law" or (say, taken from the above quote) a "FACT" because we may find a
better *theory* in the future which explains the *observed phenomena* much
more fully and precisely.
Now to address your exact statements:
You say (or you quote from the book you read -- you may want to make
quotations from other people more clear in the future):
> This experiment should NOT be repeated more than
> necessary to prove the principle. It certainly should NOT
> become a routine lab assignment in schools.
My question is why? Any experiment which claims to totally change many
current *theories* should be tested over and over and over again, to see if
it is correct. Now I understand why it shouldn't be done in, say, high
schools. After all, the experiment would require the very highest standards
in quality control, to eliminate the possibility of contamination of the
sample in question. Although it would seem to be nearly impossible to
eliminate all the impurities in the experiment you describe. After all, who
knows what chemicals these plants could absorb from the various materials
the experiment dictates growing them in.
> operators and people near woodstoves. Some bacteria can even
> NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVITY!
>
> ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE HAPPEN, IN SPITE OF the
> currently accepted "laws" of physics.
There are a few things I'd like to comment about here. The only "Laws" of
physics I am familiar with are the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy,
and the three laws of thermodynamics. (Then there are Newton's "laws", but
I think "working models at low velocities" would fit more appropriately :-)
Now, there are many current working THEORIES (Oh, by the way, I *am* yelling
at you now. If you haven't gotten the concept of THEORY by now, there's no
use discussing anything rationally with you.), which the book you refer to
would contradict. However, if the data is valid, there would be no arguing
the point, and physicists (I am, admittedly, not one) would have to work on
a new theory which matches the given data.
Mr. McElwaine, you seem to have an affinity for reading books and
proclaiming them as The Way and The Truth. I read the book, _Slaughterhouse
Five_ last year, but I didn't proclaim "The Tralfamadorians are coming!"
Now I know this is a silly example. That's why I use it. The reason I
believe, say the textbook I just went through (Electricity and Magnetism,
Berkeley Physics Series), is because the theories and models presented in
the book were backed up by *much* experimentation which those theories and
models predicted rather precisely and accurately.
An interesting coincidence, the date you gave for the book you read was
the year I was born. Now, I expect to see many changes in my lifetime, some
of them even in the field of physics (a little sarcasm there). However, if
a theory as different from current theories as the one described in your
previous post had ANY VALIDITY WHATSOEVER, I would have expected some
followup sometime in my lifetime so far.
Now, let's play devil's advocate for a second. Let's pretend that the
ideas you've been presenting for the past few weeks are valid, and that the
current scientific community is conspiring against you and people who have
similar ideas. If this is true YOU WILL EVENTUALLY PREVAIL. Hey,
Copernicus was told by many that the Heliocentric theory was false (and I do
believe someone else held to that theory before him, and helped him with his
calculations, but that could simply be a fallible memory in action).
Eventually, though, the data stacked up on his side, however, and science
could no longer ignore it (This analogy is not perfect; the Church was the
large attacker of the theory, not the scientific community).
If you truly believe in the theories you've presented, gather the data,
and then gather some more. If you can't do it yourself, then find someone
who can help you. You may not see the changes in your lifetime, but the
theory you subscribe to will, *if* it fits the data better than current
theories do. I personally don't believe the theories you have presented,
but if I see evidence to the contrary, that could change. However, shouting
at me, and reading passages from a book some guy wrote will *not* change my
mind. It will only make me more hostile to your ideas.
Okay, I'm done. If you plan to respond to this, please don't follow the
format you've chosen to respond to other posts. I won't be swayed by a
shouting match. I won't be convinced by quotes from a book which was
written 18 years ago (or 100, or 10 or 1). I will only be convinced if I am
presented with *lots* of data to warrant a new theory. Please remember that
theories are created as models of "what is really going on." They are
created to predict data from experiments. They are *not* created because
"it would be really cool if the universe worked this way." Also, please
have a little respect from *many* requests: lay off the caps.
E. Mark Ping (not a physicist, just a student)
--
E. Mark Ping
ema...@ocf.Berkeley.EDU
"Stand aside, I take large steps." --Michael Dorn
"Say, that's a nice bike." --Cyberdyne Systems T-1000
"Pituita es." --Unknown Latin Scholar
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
>
> A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the
> FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O
> --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, etc.), as described in
> the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis Kervran, [1972
> Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the book "THE SECRET
> LIFE OF PLANTS" [see Footnote.] by Peter Tompkins and
> Christopher Bird, 1973:
>
>
> ENTIRE BOOK is FASCINATING!
>
>
> Robert E. McElwaine
> B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
>
>
Oh this is precious! :-/
First he gives us Larsonian physics with no concrete proof and now he
espouses a new crackpot science with an experiment which is so chock full
of procedural holes you could literall get anything for data
(not a closed system for one). Is this an
attempt to change the subject to waste more of our precious time, or is
it an attempt to change the subject rather than answaer my
previous challenge?
I'll tell you what Mr. MCELWAINE.....give us one concrete, numerical
derivation of a known, experimentally measured physical parameter using
Larsonian physics....just one.
The gauntlet is now rotting and full of maggots. For the moment, you are
embarassing your alma mater.
Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Richard A. Schumacher
They must still be fluoridating the water up in Eau Claire, eh?
Tarl Neustaedter
> BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS
Mr. McElwaine, have you ever used the name Seth Cohn in your postings? I
could swear we've seen the same postings before (larsonian physics, followed
by Kervran transmutation), but by Seth Cohn. In any case, the stuff done
by Kervran is full of procedural errors and sources of contamination.
We went over this stuff quite thoroughly a while ago; among other things
that cropped up [sic] in the previous discussion, was that Kervran claimed
that chickens transmutted Potassium and Hydrogen into Calcium (as I recall,
K39 + H1 ==> Ca40). We worked out how much energy is liberated in that
conversion (9mg/mole, or one terajoule, or roughly 190 tons of TNT).
Thus the term "Nuclear Chickens".
I take particular issue with one comment you make:
> This experiment should NOT be repeated more than
> necessary to prove the principle. It certainly should NOT
> become a routine lab assignment in schools.
Any scientific principle should always be tested, re-tested and continually
re-examined. Both to train newcomers to the field (there is nothing like
validating an old experiment to teach a person just how bleeding hard it
is to conduct an experiment), and to ensure that the old principle
produces the same results with newer equipment which uses different
principles for measurement.
--
Tarl Neustaedter ta...@sw.stratus.com
Marlboro, Mass. Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Oleg Kiselev
> the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis Kervran, [1972
Not Kervran again! Bad experimental techniques, incompetent chemistry and
biology, pseud-physics and a large dose of mysticism -- is that what it takes
to get your attention and trust, mcelwre?
--
"... i heard the droning / in the shrine
of the sea-monkey / palace of the brine ..." -- Pixies.
Oleg Kiselev ol...@veritas.com
VERITAS Software ...!{apple|uunet}!veritas!oleg
Tripp Wallin
Well today I had some spare time so I went down to the library here at the
University of Arizona to see if they had any Dewey Larson books. To my
surprise they had a copy of Nothing But Motion or something like that any-
ways. After reading the book, which presents Larson's GUT theory, I find
it totally without merit.
The book has a nice introduction but thats about it. The next few chapters
use absolutely no mathamatics at all to explain anything except for one
chapter which presents the Newtonian force laws (I forgot there is a chapter
that presents the Lorentz Transforms but throws out Special Relativlity).
All in all the book mainly is full of thought experiment type writing (i.e.
If we have an object here at point X with mass Q then......) with the author
then saying this idea demostrates this phenomena. This method I have seen
used sucessfully in other books, most notably in G. Gamow's book Mr. Thompkins
in Wonderland, but it seems it isn't sucessfully used in this book. The
reason I think this is because most books like this are for a "introduction
to the physics without math" and this is a subject that I would
believe would require some justification using math. Next I want to
comment on the fact that in his book Mr. Larson does indeed predict some
phenomena that hadn't gotten observed yet (the book I read was the twentifh
anniversary edition published in 1980 I think.) when he had written the
book and later was observed. To address this I would point to the hundreds
of Sci-Fi authors of the fifties who predicted many things we observe
today, so they have a secret view into the workings of the universe or
just good imaginations?
The reason I read this book was because a certain Mr. McElwaine, who thinks
this theory god, would not give us any mathmatical backing to the theory.
Well I thought Mr. Larson had to have at least some mathmatical justification
in his book but I was wrong. Also I'd like to comment on two other things
in the book. One was in this edition I read they said that indeed over the
past twenty years things originally predicted in the book have been
observed but they've had to edit the text a bit, "just like any good theory",
to match the observation. Isn't that silly...its presented in the introduction
of the book, so Mr. Larson's theory predicted a event but it wasn't quite
correct but could be compensated for. They , whomever "they" are, never tell
you what corrections they made in his theory. I would call this ethically
wrong for the fact that they say this theory satisfies everything almost
they had to change it around a bit but don't want to tell where. Its like
someone coming in and correcting your work for you so everyone will get the
impression your a super-genius. The second thing I'd like to complain about
is the fact to again justify his theory Larson uses the same qoute from
Dr. Feynmen about his unsatisfactory feeling with modern physics as a
conglomeration of laws loosely collected about five times in his book. He
seems to think just because someone who is noteworthy for his work in
physics doesn't like the state of it then there should be a reworking of
all physics albeit through Mr. Larson's theory. I wonder what Feynmen
would say about this book.........
Oh well I hope I haven't ranted to much........please any followers of
Mr. Larson correct me on any faults in my article, I only read the book
once and laughed most of the time.
Tripp Wallin
Physics and Math undergraduate
wal...@hep7.physics.arizona.edu
NOTE: I hope finally answers a lot of questions about Larson theory. If anyone
thinks I need to be more indepth please mail me and I'll prepare a more
detailed article on proving Larson theory wrong.
Tarl Neustaedter
In article <1992Jun15....@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mce...@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes:
> [several procedure steps, ending in burning seeds vs sprouted plants]
>
> (6) Analyze quantitatively the residue of each group for
> mineral content. [Some of the mineral atoms of the
> sprouted group have been TRANSMUTED into heavier
> mineral elements by FUSING with atoms of oxygen,
> hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, etc..]
If you perform this experiment, make sure you carry it out under
sealed conditions - sealed airtight bottles, with nothing going in
or out once the experiment has started.
Mr. Kervran neglected to do this, and thus allowed contamination from
any number of sources - airborne and otherwise. Plants are known to
collect dust (take a look at tree leaves in a smog-infested city),
which is a primary suspect for unexpected materials. Airborne bacteria
(which can form symbiotic relationships with plants) are another. Land
borne (and shelf-borne) creepy-crawly critters are yet another.
Mr. Kervran also neglected to correctly determine what materials he
was introducing into the experiment; As I recall he used Evian water
because it made plants grow better - but didn't characterize what was
present in said water. If you conduct this experiment, use distilled
water with specific nutrients added.
The other major mistake Mr. Kervran made was to not give error bars
for his measurements. When he stated he found 0.0093 grams of something,
he didn't state how much material he was measuring or what accuracy his
measurement was performed with. And incidentally, simple burning is a
poor precursor to analysis - dissolving in solvents is a better way,
since it is easier to control and you don't lose material.
> Some bacteria can even NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVITY!
Fascinating. You mean radioisotope tracing of nutrients in the
presence of these bacteria doesn't work? You might want to let
the biologists in your school know that, and which bacteria do
it, to save them much embarrasment from publishing results that
are clearly wrong.
[For the humor impaired, the above paragraph is unalloyed sarcasm]
Tord Malmgren
[text deleted]
> Next I want to
> comment on the fact that in his book Mr. Larson does indeed predict some
> phenomena that hadn't gotten observed yet (the book I read was the twentifh
> anniversary edition published in 1980 I think.) when he had written the
> book and later was observed. To address this I would point to the hundreds
> of Sci-Fi authors of the fifties who predicted many things we observe
> today, so they have a secret view into the workings of the universe or
> just good imaginations?
check out the numbers of SciFi authors, and check out how many predicted
something correctly, and how many that didn't -- *somebody* HAS to get
*something* right... I'd say "good luck" with "good imagination"...
---------------+--------------------------------
Tord Malmgren | InterNet: To...@VanD.PhySto.SE | These opinions are my own,
| BITNet : TordM@SESUF51 | and NOT of this department!
---------------+--------------------------------
Department of Physics, University of Stockholm
jdpo...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
>
> A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the
> FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS"
Oh God, not again |-)
(1) No way is one experimental demonstration a proof of any theory, you need to
test it far more thoroughly than that.
>(reactions like Mg + O
> --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, etc.), as described in
> the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis Kervran, [1972
> Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the book "THE SECRET
> LIFE OF PLANTS" [see Footnote.] by Peter Tompkins and
> Christopher Bird, 1973:
>
Mr. McElwaine, why do you believe in any book you read, so long as its contents
are suitably insane, and provided that its contents also contradict totally all
that is presently believed about the universe?
>
> (1) Obtain a good sample of plant seeds, all of the same
> kind. [Some kinds might work better that others.]
>
> (2) Divide the sample into two groups of equal weight
> and number.
>
> (3) Sprout one group in distilled water on filter paper
> for three or four weeks.
>
> (4) Separately incinerate both groups.
>
> (5) Weigh the residue from each group. [The residue of
> the sprouted group will usually weigh at least
> SEVERAL PERCENT MORE than the other group.]
>
> (6) Analyze quantitatively the residue of each group for
> mineral content. [Some of the mineral atoms of the
> sprouted group have been TRANSMUTED into heavier
> mineral elements by FUSING with atoms of oxygen,
> hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, etc..]
>
What is this meant to prove? There are huge holes in the argument.
> This experiment should NOT be repeated more than
> necessary to prove the principle. It certainly should NOT
> become a routine lab assignment in schools.
>
Why ever not? are you by any chance frightened lest people do the experiment
for themselves and find a sensible explanation for it?
>
> BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS occur ROUTINELY, even in our
> own bodies. Ingesting a source of organic silicon (silicon
> with carbon, such as "horsetail" extract, or radishes) can
> SPEED HEALING OF BROKEN BONES via the reaction Si + C --> Ca,
> (much faster than by merely ingesting the calcium directly).
> Some MINERAL DEPOSITS in the ground are formed by micro-
> organisms FUSING together atoms of silicon, carbon, nitrogen,
> oxygen, hydrogen, etc.. The two reactions Si + C <--> Ca, by
> micro-organisms, cause "STONE SICKNESS" in statues, building
> bricks, etc.. The reaction N2 --> CO, catalysed by very hot
> iron, creates a CARBON-MONOXIDE POISON HAZARD for welder
> operators and people near woodstoves. Some bacteria can even
> NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVITY!
>
!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE HAPPEN, IN SPITE OF the
> currently accepted "laws" of physics.
>
Here we go again. Now then Mr. McElwaine, I am going to ask you a
question to
which I want a one-word answer, i.e. Yes or No. Ready?
Q) Do you believe that every practicing physicist, astronomer, chemist and
biologist in the world is an adherent to an incorrect theory, and that every
singlt experiment ever performed which apparently supported these theories did
so as a result of falsification?
>
> Footnote: Chapters 19 and 20 are about "RADIONICS".
And what are they when they're at home?
> ENTIRE BOOK is FASCINATING!
>
No doubt it is, as a source of unconscious humour, but I doubt if this is what
you had in mind.
>
> Robert E. McElwaine
> B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Incidentally, if you are intending to respond in
your usual way, by simply coming out with a load of dogmatic 'xyz says it, so
it must be true', why don't you send all further replies to some other
newsgroup, like alt.stupidity? |-)
Julian Porter
mce...@cnsvax.uwec.edu
>
> A very simple experiment can demonstrate (PROVE) the
> FACT of "BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS" (reactions like Mg + O
> --> Ca, Si + C --> Ca, K + H --> Ca, etc.), as described in
> the BOOK "Biological Transmutations" by Louis Kervran, [1972
> Edition is BEST.], and in Chapter 17 of the book "THE SECRET
> LIFE OF PLANTS" [see Footnote.] by Peter Tompkins and
> Christopher Bird, 1973:
>
> (1) Obtain a good sample of plant seeds, all of the same
> kind. [Some kinds might work better that others.]
>
> (2) Divide the sample into two groups of equal weight
> and number.
>
> (3) Sprout one group in distilled water on filter paper
> for three or four weeks.
>
> (4) Separately incinerate both groups.
>
> (5) Weigh the residue from each group. [The residue of
> the sprouted group will usually weigh at least
> SEVERAL PERCENT MORE than the other group.]
>
> (6) Analyze quantitatively the residue of each group for
> mineral content. [Some of the mineral atoms of the
> sprouted group have been TRANSMUTED into heavier
> mineral elements by FUSING with atoms of oxygen,
> hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen, etc..]
BY ALL MEANS, IMPROVE ON HIS METHODS TO ENSURE PROTECTION FROM CONTAMINATION.
JUST BE HONEST WHEN DOING IT AND REPORTING IT.
>
> This experiment should NOT be repeated more than
> necessary to prove the principle. It certainly should NOT
> become a routine lab assignment in schools.
THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT A SPROUTED SEED IS A LIVING THING WITH A
RUDIMENTARY SPIRIT AND CONSCIOUSNESS, IN SPITE OF ITS LOW POSITION ON THE SCALE
OF EVOLUTION, AND SHOULD *NOT* BE KILLED UNNECESSARILY.
>
>
> BIOLOGICAL TRANSMUTATIONS occur ROUTINELY, even in our
> own bodies. Ingesting a source of organic silicon (silicon
> with carbon, such as "horsetail" extract, or radishes) can
> SPEED HEALING OF BROKEN BONES via the reaction Si + C --> Ca,
> (much faster than by merely ingesting the calcium directly).
> Some MINERAL DEPOSITS in the ground are formed by micro-
> organisms FUSING together atoms of silicon, carbon, nitrogen,
> oxygen, hydrogen, etc.. The two reactions Si + C <--> Ca, by
> micro-organisms, cause "STONE SICKNESS" in statues, building
> bricks, etc.. The reaction N2 --> CO, catalysed by very hot
> iron, creates a CARBON-MONOXIDE POISON HAZARD for welder
> operators and people near woodstoves. Some bacteria can even
> NEUTRALIZE RADIOACTIVITY!
>
> ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE HAPPEN, IN SPITE OF the
> currently accepted "laws" of physics.
INCLUDING THE "LAW" WHICH SAYS THAT ATOMIC FUSION REQUIRES EXTREMELY HIGH
TEMPERATURES AND PRESSURES.
>
>
> Footnote: Chapters 19 and 20 are about "RADIONICS".
> ENTIRE BOOK is FASCINATING!
>
>
> Robert E. McElwaine
> B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
>
ALL THESE COMPLAINTS AGAINST USING CAPITALS FOR EMPHASIS ARE *CHILDISH*!!!
Tarl Neustaedter
> [self-quoting an entire article with additional comments]
> > [...]
> >
> > This experiment should NOT be repeated more than
> > necessary to prove the principle. It certainly should NOT
> > become a routine lab assignment in schools.
>
> THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT A SPROUTED SEED IS A LIVING THING WITH A
> RUDIMENTARY SPIRIT AND CONSCIOUSNESS, IN SPITE OF ITS LOW POSITION ON THE
> SCALE OF EVOLUTION, AND SHOULD *NOT* BE KILLED UNNECESSARILY.
Lesse. We shouldn't kill plants. That presumably means we shouldn't kill
animals either. And I already know that it's immoral to drink milk and
eat eggs because this is exploiting animals (at least that's the reason
my sister gave for her militant Vegan diet of beans & curd).
Well, my health would suffer terribly if I went on a diet of rocks and
water. So I think I'll continue to kill plants (and animals, too) so that
I can continue to eat. Compared to the number of plants and animals
sacrified in that endeavour, the above experiment is down in the noise.
> ALL THESE COMPLAINTS AGAINST USING CAPITALS FOR EMPHASIS ARE *CHILDISH*!!!
Congratulations, Mr. McElwaine. It took you several weeks of dedicated
effort, but you have accomplished a fairly difficult feat. I enjoy a good
argument as much as anyone, and am willing to continue to debate and
provide information on technical issues long after most people give
up. But even I have a dislike of blind, deaf and dumb brick walls.
You have reached my kill file, behind Harel Barzilai and Ted Holden.
A5...@cunyvm.bitnet
behind the mineral deposits!
Case Closed...
Next?
-------
CHARLES HOPE A54SI@CUNYVM A5...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
BUSH IN 92: ENVIRONMENT, EDUCATION, AND NO NEW TAXES.
jdpo...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
material deleted
>> This experiment should NOT be repeated more than
>> necessary to prove the principle. It certainly should NOT
>> become a routine lab assignment in schools.
>
> THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT A SPROUTED SEED IS A LIVING THING WITH A
> RUDIMENTARY SPIRIT AND CONSCIOUSNESS, IN SPITE OF ITS LOW POSITION ON THE SCALE
> OF EVOLUTION, AND SHOULD *NOT* BE KILLED UNNECESSARILY.
>
Oh come off it, howe much evidence have we got that plants are conscious
anyway, even when fully grown? Are you one of these people who believe that
gametes are conscious in all species?
[material deleted]
>>
>> ALL OF THESE THINGS AND MORE HAPPEN, IN SPITE OF the
>> currently accepted "laws" of physics.
>
> INCLUDING THE "LAW" WHICH SAYS THAT ATOMIC FUSION REQUIRES EXTREMELY HIGH
> TEMPERATURES AND PRESSURES.
Oh dear - why not actually give some justfication for once? Mud slinging is
not a particularly good approach to attempting to convert people to your point
of view. If you happen to believe in cold fusion or in transformations which
violate just about every physical law I can think of, why don't you actually
back up your claims by describing the mechanism by which they are meant to
occur, instead of simply announcing them in a smug seld-satisfied way, and
denouncing all who disagree with you as heretics and unbelievers?
>
>>
>>
>> Footnote: Chapters 19 and 20 are about "RADIONICS".
>> ENTIRE BOOK is FASCINATING!
>>
>>
>> Robert E. McElwaine
>> B.S., Physics and Astronomy, UW-EC
>>
> ALL THESE COMPLAINTS AGAINST USING CAPITALS FOR EMPHASIS ARE *CHILDISH*!!!
And so are you, kiddo.
Julian Porter