Thoughts on purity

[LevitatingGod]

Curious, the Chinese also had pools of liquid mercury in their pyramids, IIRC. I'd have to dig deep for a reference for that, though :?

supposedly Tibet[an] Monks lifted stones using chants and trumpets this way

Start us a thread somewhere with the sound stuff in, I'm interested!
I had a look already: How Acoustic Levitation Works

Okie dokie! I will as soon as possible. I have a pretty large section of informative stuff about the secrets of sound, too. Just bare with me a bit and I'll get one started.

 

[SnozzleBerry]

It's not non sense. There were pyramids build that sat over "pools of mercury" and the idea Mercury can be turned to gold dates further back than our bodies are old. So I'm saying the idea it's possible existed before you were here telling me it's nonsense.

Can you provide me with any reasonably solid references for your statements above about pyramids and pools of mercury? I am genuinely curious.

As for the ideas about transmutation of mercury into gold: humanity has entertained fairy tales for ages, too. One of the main distinctions that separates experimental science from fairy tales is independently reproducible evidence. AFAIK there is none of that good stuff for these "alchemical" claims about transmutation.

"An archaeologist has discovered liquid mercury at the end of a tunnel beneath a Mexican pyramid, a finding that could suggest the existence of a king’s tomb or a ritual chamber far below one of the most ancient cities of the Americas.

Mexican researcher Sergio Gómez announced on Friday that he had discovered “large quantities” of liquid mercury in a chamber below the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent, the third largest pyramid of Teotihuacan, the ruined city in central Mexico."
This is theguardian.com

Here's a link to the article, which is from over two years ago, and I couldn't find any follow up.

Whether or not there were "pools of mercury" I think there's some poor reasoning being displayed here, as the earlier claim was:

There were pyramids build that sat over "pools of mercury" and the idea Mercury can be turned to gold dates further back than our bodies are old. So I'm saying the idea it's possible existed before you were here telling me it's nonsense.

However, the age of a belief is not evidence of its merit. Even if *every* society in history stored large quantities of mercury owing to their beliefs about transmuting it into gold, it would not mean that mercury can be turned into gold. The point being that such "alchemical assertions" are currently lacking any demonstrable evidence (although I would second pitubo's point re: allegories) and aren't valid counterpoints to statements that such assertions lack evidence and are therefore nonsensical (read: not based on consensus evidence).

Endlessness already linked you to sectiopn of the Attitude in another thread, but I'm going to reiterate it here.

Quality of information and discussion

If you post something as a fact, you have to be able to provide a reliable source for your argument. This depends contextually, but a peer-reviewed publication is an example of what could be a good source, and a random unknown website or what “someone said” could be an example of an unreliable source. If you state something as your opinion then please support that opinion with good reasoning. If you cannot do that then don't state your opinion at all since it's useless for others. This is not Facebook with like/dislike.

 

[LevitatingGod]

It's not non sense. There were pyramids build that sat over "pools of mercury" and the idea Mercury can be turned to gold dates further back than our bodies are old. So I'm saying the idea it's possible existed before you were here telling me it's nonsense.

Can you provide me with any reasonably solid references for your statements above about pyramids and pools of mercury? I am genuinely curious.

As for the ideas about transmutation of mercury into gold: humanity has entertained fairy tales for ages, too. One of the main distinctions that separates experimental science from fairy tales is independently reproducible evidence. AFAIK there is none of that good stuff for these "alchemical" claims about transmutation.

"An archaeologist has discovered liquid mercury at the end of a tunnel beneath a Mexican pyramid, a finding that could suggest the existence of a king’s tomb or a ritual chamber far below one of the most ancient cities of the Americas.

Mexican researcher Sergio Gómez announced on Friday that he had discovered “large quantities” of liquid mercury in a chamber below the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent, the third largest pyramid of Teotihuacan, the ruined city in central Mexico."
This is theguardian.com

Here's a link to the article, which is from over two years ago, and I couldn't find any follow up.

Whether or not there were "pools of mercury" I think there's some poor reasoning being displayed here, as the earlier claim was:

There were pyramids build that sat over "pools of mercury" and the idea Mercury can be turned to gold dates further back than our bodies are old. So I'm saying the idea it's possible existed before you were here telling me it's nonsense.

However, the age of a belief is not evidence of its merit. Even if *every* society in history stored large quantities of mercury owing to their beliefs about transmuting it into gold, it would not mean that mercury can be turned into gold. The point being that such "alchemical assertions" are currently lacking any demonstrable evidence (although I would second pitubo's point re: allegories) and aren't valid counterpoints to statements that such assertions lack evidence and are therefore nonsensical (read: not based on consensus evidence).

Endlessness already linked you to sectiopn of the Attitude in another thread, but I'm going to reiterate it here.

Quality of information and discussion

If you post something as a fact, you have to be able to provide a reliable source for your argument. This depends contextually, but a peer-reviewed publication is an example of what could be a good source, and a random unknown website or what “someone said” could be an example of an unreliable source. If you state something as your opinion then please support that opinion with good reasoning. If you cannot do that then don't state your opinion at all since it's useless for others. This is not Facebook with like/dislike.

I looked up factual experimentation of transmuting impure metals to pure metals and got this:

Enjoy.

 

[Mindlusion]

It's not non sense. There were pyramids build that sat over "pools of mercury" and the idea Mercury can be turned to gold dates further back than our bodies are old. So I'm saying the idea it's possible existed before you were here telling me it's nonsense.

Can you provide me with any reasonably solid references for your statements above about pyramids and pools of mercury? I am genuinely curious.

As for the ideas about transmutation of mercury into gold: humanity has entertained fairy tales for ages, too. One of the main distinctions that separates experimental science from fairy tales is independently reproducible evidence. AFAIK there is none of that good stuff for these "alchemical" claims about transmutation.

"An archaeologist has discovered liquid mercury at the end of a tunnel beneath a Mexican pyramid, a finding that could suggest the existence of a king’s tomb or a ritual chamber far below one of the most ancient cities of the Americas.

Mexican researcher Sergio Gómez announced on Friday that he had discovered “large quantities” of liquid mercury in a chamber below the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent, the third largest pyramid of Teotihuacan, the ruined city in central Mexico."
This is theguardian.com

Here's a link to the article, which is from over two years ago, and I couldn't find any follow up.

Whether or not there were "pools of mercury" I think there's some poor reasoning being displayed here, as the earlier claim was:

There were pyramids build that sat over "pools of mercury" and the idea Mercury can be turned to gold dates further back than our bodies are old. So I'm saying the idea it's possible existed before you were here telling me it's nonsense.

However, the age of a belief is not evidence of its merit. Even if *every* society in history stored large quantities of mercury owing to their beliefs about transmuting it into gold, it would not mean that mercury can be turned into gold. The point being that such "alchemical assertions" are currently lacking any demonstrable evidence (although I would second pitubo's point re: allegories) and aren't valid counterpoints to statements that such assertions lack evidence and are therefore nonsensical (read: not based on consensus evidence).

Endlessness already linked you to sectiopn of the Attitude in another thread, but I'm going to reiterate it here.

Quality of information and discussion

If you post something as a fact, you have to be able to provide a reliable source for your argument. This depends contextually, but a peer-reviewed publication is an example of what could be a good source, and a random unknown website or what “someone said” could be an example of an unreliable source. If you state something as your opinion then please support that opinion with good reasoning. If you cannot do that then don't state your opinion at all since it's useless for others. This is not Facebook with like/dislike.

I looked up factual experimentation of transmuting impure metals to pure metals and got this:

Enjoy.

:? you've got to be kidding me.

Where do you think gold comes from in the first place?

this feels like trolling

 

[LevitatingGod]

It's not non sense. There were pyramids build that sat over "pools of mercury" and the idea Mercury can be turned to gold dates further back than our bodies are old. So I'm saying the idea it's possible existed before you were here telling me it's nonsense.

Can you provide me with any reasonably solid references for your statements above about pyramids and pools of mercury? I am genuinely curious.

As for the ideas about transmutation of mercury into gold: humanity has entertained fairy tales for ages, too. One of the main distinctions that separates experimental science from fairy tales is independently reproducible evidence. AFAIK there is none of that good stuff for these "alchemical" claims about transmutation.

"An archaeologist has discovered liquid mercury at the end of a tunnel beneath a Mexican pyramid, a finding that could suggest the existence of a king’s tomb or a ritual chamber far below one of the most ancient cities of the Americas.

Mexican researcher Sergio Gómez announced on Friday that he had discovered “large quantities” of liquid mercury in a chamber below the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent, the third largest pyramid of Teotihuacan, the ruined city in central Mexico."
This is theguardian.com

Here's a link to the article, which is from over two years ago, and I couldn't find any follow up.

Whether or not there were "pools of mercury" I think there's some poor reasoning being displayed here, as the earlier claim was:

There were pyramids build that sat over "pools of mercury" and the idea Mercury can be turned to gold dates further back than our bodies are old. So I'm saying the idea it's possible existed before you were here telling me it's nonsense.

However, the age of a belief is not evidence of its merit. Even if *every* society in history stored large quantities of mercury owing to their beliefs about transmuting it into gold, it would not mean that mercury can be turned into gold. The point being that such "alchemical assertions" are currently lacking any demonstrable evidence (although I would second pitubo's point re: allegories) and aren't valid counterpoints to statements that such assertions lack evidence and are therefore nonsensical (read: not based on consensus evidence).

Endlessness already linked you to sectiopn of the Attitude in another thread, but I'm going to reiterate it here.

Quality of information and discussion

If you post something as a fact, you have to be able to provide a reliable source for your argument. This depends contextually, but a peer-reviewed publication is an example of what could be a good source, and a random unknown website or what “someone said” could be an example of an unreliable source. If you state something as your opinion then please support that opinion with good reasoning. If you cannot do that then don't state your opinion at all since it's useless for others. This is not Facebook with like/dislike.

I looked up factual experimentation of transmuting impure metals to pure metals and got this:

Enjoy.

:? you've got to be kidding me.

Where do you think gold comes from in the first place?

this feels like trolling

Did you even watch the video? It was proven in the 1920s that it's fact that you can transmute a Mercury isotope into gold.
You do know chemistry was originally the study of alchemy? Also, these are Professional chemists and chemistry professors that have PhDs in their field of study & a few of them TRANSMUTE IT FOR A LIVING EVERY DAY IN CALIFORNIA and you're calling me a troll? Please watch the video.

 

[Mindlusion]

the answer is the sun

and no, i didnt need to watch the video

if you want to argue semantics and live in your own world fine by me, you want to call nuclear fusion alchemy go ahead, i mean it is pretty astounding, just don't go expecting others to ride that boat with you

there are a lot of mysterious things in this universe and we sure as hell haven't begun to figure them out so don't worry about that either

 

[LevitatingGod]

the answer is the sun

and no, i didnt need to watch the video

if you want to argue semantics and live in your own world fine by me, you want to call nuclear fusion alchemy go ahead, i mean it is pretty astounding, just don't go expecting others to ride that boat with you

there are a lot of mysterious things in this universe and we sure as hell haven't begun to figure them out so don't worry about that either

Interesting perspective.
The narrator for the history channel video I linked showing CERN employees explaining nuclear fusion calls nuclear fusion "alchemy" like 2-3 times.
The LHC at CERN is considered by some to be a modern day Philosophers Stone. If you don't think ancient mysticism is correlated to scientific findings, then explain why the biggest machine man has build in the pursuit of science has a Shiva Goddess outside of it.
Oh and for the answer being the sun, I didn't need to respond because if you had watched the video of real professionals you would've seen the video clearly states the answer is gold comes from nuclear reactions in the sun and then it's spread by a super nova. Regardless, this video shows CERN employees working with a modern day "Philosophers stone" because they are deriving Gold from other elements, thus a Philosophers Stone.

 

[LevitatingGod]

It's obviously nuclear fusion, though. I am in no way saying that classification is not correct as well. I just view all angles as holding some truth like everything belongs. Kinda like the experiment showing that two people can see two different images casted from the same object.

 

[Mindlusion]

actually its the journalist who calls it alchemy, science journalists are often so remarkably stupid the amount that it has to be dumbed down to get the message across to them. But I suppose that is their job to translate the information the public.

Look, i am a professional chemist too, and I have a huge hard on for theoretical physics, but I am also no stranger to mysticism, just look at my avatar.

I have spiritual beliefs about the nature of reality and my place in it, that arise out of my own experience, and they are also deeply intertwined in what i have learned in my physical understanding of reality, however inadequate.

I think what you posted now is beautiful, the cosmic dance, speaks to me strongly

“Modern physics has shown that the rhythm of creation and destruction is not only manifest in the turn of the seasons and in the birth and death of all living creatures, but is also the very essence of inorganic matter,” and that “For the modern physicists, then, Shiva’s dance is the dance of subatomic matter.”

It is indeed as Capra concluded: “Hundreds of years ago, Indian artists created visual images of dancing Shivas in a beautiful series of bronzes. In our time, physicists have used the most advanced technology to portray the patterns of the cosmic dance. The metaphor of the cosmic dance thus unifies ancient mythology, religious art and modern physics.”

It is so very true, makes me tear up.

there is a reason why I include a bhagavad gita quote in my signature.

--

its about truth, and in its entirety it is unknowable, unmanifested, we can only stand in awe and wonder of the ineffable magnificence and ourselves in it. The pattern is always there, if anything, physics, science is but a tool to dust off and see a bit more detail of that pattern.

the conflict comes when one decides to do away with these tools, claiming that any perspective, any opinion is a valid one. There is nothing wrong with imagination, drawing connections out of the ether, that is what the real scientists do, then they come up with a way to put it to a test. CERN physicists don't go asserting that ancient mayan cultures were transfiguring pools of mercury into gold. That's the difference, its a game you play with the universe, you can't cheat. Doesn't mean they believe its impossible, either.

 

[LevitatingGod]

actually its the journalist who calls it alchemy, science journalists are often so remarkably stupid the amount that it has to be dumbed down to get the message across to them. But I suppose that is their job to translate the information the public.

Look, i am a professional chemist too, and I have a huge hard on for theoretical physics, but I am also no stranger to mysticism, just look at my avatar.

I have spiritual beliefs about the nature of reality and my place in it, that arise out of my own experience, and they are also deeply intertwined in what i have learned in my physical understanding of reality, however inadequate.

I think what you posted now is beautiful, the cosmic dance, speaks to me strongly

“Modern physics has shown that the rhythm of creation and destruction is not only manifest in the turn of the seasons and in the birth and death of all living creatures, but is also the very essence of inorganic matter,” and that “For the modern physicists, then, Shiva’s dance is the dance of subatomic matter.”

It is indeed as Capra concluded: “Hundreds of years ago, Indian artists created visual images of dancing Shivas in a beautiful series of bronzes. In our time, physicists have used the most advanced technology to portray the patterns of the cosmic dance. The metaphor of the cosmic dance thus unifies ancient mythology, religious art and modern physics.”

It is so very true, makes me tear up.

there is a reason why I include a bhagavad gita quote in my signature.

--

its about truth, and in its entirety it is unknowable, unmanifested, we can only stand in awe and wonder of the ineffable magnificence and ourselves in it. The pattern is always there, if anything, physics, science is but a tool to dust off and see a bit more detail of that pattern.

the conflict comes when one decides to do away with these tools, claiming that any perspective, any opinion is a valid one. There is nothing wrong with imagination, drawing connections out of the ether, that is what the real scientists do, then they come up with a way to put it to a test. CERN physicists don't go asserting that ancient mayan cultures were transfiguring pools of mercury into gold. That's the difference, its a game you play with the universe, you can't cheat. Doesn't mean they believe its impossible, either.

I see your point, very valid.
My apologies for the pools of mercury talk. It's just a topic of interest for me, that's all. I shouldn't of stated it like I had.

You like theoretical physics? Well I have almost completed my theoretical proposition and it's all about epigenetics, algorithms, how matter takes form (Kymatica), and how we, as beings of frequency, orchestrate reality by sound/vibrational frequency.