Is m-state alchemy?

[solomon levi]

Is the calx of gold alchemy?
Of course it is.

Glauber produced a very fine calx of gold by adding salt of tartar to gold chloride solution.
That is the basic m-state process - adding an alkali to precipitate gold out of solutions of salt waters
or gold chloride solution.

So to say that m-state is nothing to do with alchemy is to say that calx of gold has no part in alchemy.
And I can refer you to many texts which speak of calx of gold as "our gold".
But I'm not going to, because if you're not aware of this you have no real ground to have
a valued opinion on what is or isn't alchemy.

[solomon levi]

The whole idea or question of what is or isn't alchemy only reflects
the narrowness of one's own mind.
Jerry isn't talking about alchemy. He's talking about what he accepts/believes as alchemy.

There is no one here who has exhausted alchemy in order to have a final opinion about it.

But those who have final opinions without walking the entire path tell us something about themselves.
Those who accept others opinions without doing the work tell us something about themselves.

Hudson is a respected authority in his arena, as is McLean in his.
They needn't contradict or oppose one another.
It is your mind that needs to invent/see the opposition.
The divided mind sees division everywhere.

[BeautifulEvil]

The divided mind sees division everywhere.

Aye, and the united mind sees unity everywhere. I've been trying to decide who would be the first to start a thread like this one. Looks like Solomon Levi takes the prize!

-------

We have two questions we need to discuss before we're able to answer this question. 1) What is m-state? 2) What is alchemy?

The second question is much more difficult, because it tends to have personal connotations. However, if we're able to answer the first question, and we decide that these so called 'ORMES' do not exist, then our original question becomes void. Experimental confirmation is the best way to answer number one. I propose we design an experiment in which we're able to test whether or not gold m-state can actually enhance the growth of plants. It seems pretty simple. Makes a calx of gold via the gold chloride + alkali method. Isolate the precipitate, and wash a few times with distilled water. There's your m-state gold. Use Dead Sea salt precipitate (presumed to be mostly gold m-state) as your other test subject. Buy some seeds/plants from the store, and then design three groups. 1) Those fed with pure gold calx (m-state). 2) Those fed with Dead Sea salt precipitate. 3) Those fed with regular distilled water (no fertilizers).

Run the test a few times, tally up the totals, analyze the data, and then report back. We'll be able to settle this mystery. If the plant group from test subject one (gold calx) doesn't grow as vigorously as the plant group from number two (Dead Sea salt) then we must figure out why the Dead Sea salt precipitate exhibited these symptoms. If plant group one and plant group two both show vigorous growth in comparison to plant group three then we can arrive at an interesting conclusion. If plant group one and plant group three both lack in growth then we must consider the composition and mechanism behind the growth of plant group two.

Sometimes I feel like a mad scientist.

[Xcalibur254]

Just a quick question since I'm new to alchemy. What exactly is m-state? I see it mentioned in a ton of topics but don't actually know what it is.

[deviadah]

It is just another word for monatomic state!

In physics and chemistry, monatomic is a combination of the words "mono" and "atomic," and means "single atom". - source

The white powder is comprised of a group of elements in a monatomic state. Hudson calls them "ORMES" for "Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements." This is a new form (phase) of matter with entirely different physical properties from normal elements. Conventional chemistry texts have been of little value in explaining ORMEs. Several scientists have started studies of such matter although, to the author's knowledge, none has yet developed a satisfactory theory explaining the phenomena. To date, Hudson's discoveries have neither been conclusively confirmed nor rebutted by independent investigators. - source

Essay: Monatomic Elements (ORMES)

[Jerry]

You don't come every day across such claims like magnetic Au, stimulated plant growth, etc.. with photos and videos.

Its nice to have a garden, maybe you could try some experiments with "m-state" and help us solve the mystery.

You're right, it is not everyday I come across such en-ormus claims. Dancing bears and flashing lights called Alchemy is not. You have still yet to show any concordance or agreement of the classic alchemical literature with anything you have provided.

If you want to solve the “mystery”, we should really start at the beginning and explain to us how David Hudson came to the conclusion he could get 600 ounces per ton of Iridium from his analysis of the ore sample.

[theFool]

You're right, it is not everyday I come across such en-ormus claims. Dancing bears and flashing lights called Alchemy is not.

I don't see why I should give more credit to the old books which have a concealed language and not at least the same to a patent that uses modern scientific words.

You have still yet to show any concordance or agreement of the classic alchemical literature with anything you have provided.

I could post some texts refering to the calx of gold but I don't think this would help the conversation. I don't care if it is in accordance with "classic alchemical literature". My view of alchemy is not limited only to classic books.

If you want to solve the “mystery”, we should really start at the beginning and explain to us how David Hudson came to the conclusion he could get 600 ounces per ton of Iridium from his analysis of the ore sample.

I have no opinion on the matter due to lack of related knowledge.

[phliosehea]

I don't see why I should give more credit to the old books which have a concealed language and not at least the same to a patent that uses modern scientific words.

Considering they (old books) are the source material that Hudson (et all) have drawn from, are applying their theory to, and have proliferated as alchemical - then that would be why tying the two together is valid. Even though the language is "concealed" there are certain notions which reoccur enough (and within reasonable understanding) that the correlation between the two (alchemy/ormes) sometimes appears rather thin (to me personally) . Hudson's theories are interesting, but I believe the tether to alchemy was more of a marketing ploy...and I always found it suspicious that he would never ingest any of his wares himself...even after the guinea pigs had their share. Either way, this is too much of an semantic battle and the above is just my opinion.

[solomon levi]

You don't come every day across such claims like magnetic Au, stimulated plant growth, etc.. with photos and videos.

Its nice to have a garden, maybe you could try some experiments with "m-state" and help us solve the mystery.

You're right, it is not everyday I come across such en-ormus claims. Dancing bears and flashing lights called Alchemy is not. You have still yet to show any concordance or agreement of the classic alchemical literature with anything you have provided.

If you want to solve the “mystery”, we should really start at the beginning and explain to us how David Hudson came to the conclusion he could get 600 ounces per ton of Iridium from his analysis of the ore sample.

You said it has nothing to do with alchemy.
I am arguing that, not that everything Hudson said is true.
If the a process used by a popular alchemist (Glauber) produces the same
result as one used by those working in what they claim to be m-state,
then I have proven m-state has to do with alchemy.

Did you even know that it is synonymous with calx of gold before you rejected it?

My real purpose is to prevent one closed mind from closing others.
You close the door when m-state hasn't been disproven.
That's not scientific.
And it's obvious you haven't even read or seen Hudson's lectures to know to
what extent he went to prove his material.

Asking someone else to prove something...
why don't you disprove it if you're so adamant against it?
Reading and believing McLean's conclusions doesn't prove anything.

What is your proof that m-state isn't alchemy?
Is it more scientific than mine?
You say it isn't in the classical literature, but how would you know?
Do you know what the first matter is?
Do you know m-state metals isn't the predecesor of metals?
Are you saying no old alchemical texts refer to a white powder of gold?

You're just wrong here.
Just admit your judgements are premature and not scientifically supported.
You basically already have by saying you've taken McLean's word for the truth.

[solomon levi]

You're right, it is not everyday I come across such en-ormus claims. Dancing bears and flashing lights called Alchemy is not. You have still yet to show any concordance or agreement of the classic alchemical literature with anything you have provided.

Like I said, if you're not aware of the numerous texts that refer to calx of gold, you're in no position
to declare what is or isn't alchemy.

[theFool]

I don't see why I should give more credit to the old books which have a concealed language and not at least the same to a patent that uses modern scientific words.

Considering they (old books) are the source material that Hudson (et all) have drawn from, are applying their theory to, and have proliferated as alchemical - then that would be why tying the two together is valid.

I didn't mean here to devaluate a tradition that survives for eons. My perspective when writing this was the following: Imagine I have a scientific background and never heard about alchemy or m-state theories. When I come across them, I am drawn naturally towards the Hudson patent. The language is logical and understandable and I can try experiments to verify it myself. I admit, I have no alchemical background. However, it would be very nice also, to find accordances between m-state theory and alchemical texts because, this would strengthen both alchemy and m-state theory.

Hudson's theories are interesting, but I believe the tether to alchemy was more of a marketing ploy

I think also that where money gets involved a lot af lies and exagerrations are told. But I don't know much about how he discovered it or how he made the theory. My main reference is his patent only.

[theFool]

Philalethes states it clear:

The Stone you seek, we said and still affirm is only gold, brought to so high perfection as it is possible, which though a firm compacted body is, yet by art's direction, and nature's operation, made a tinging spirit which will never fade

And in The Hermetical Thriumph:

The gold of the wise is proper the gold of the second species; for when this gold is perfectly calcined, and exalted to the cleanness and whiteness of snow, it acquires, by Magistery, a natural sympathy for the Astral Gold, of whom it has become visibly a true magnet, ...

So, it seems that Hudson provides us with a nice verifiable and well documented way to exalt gold to "the cleanness and whiteness of snow". We shouldn't decline his patent without even testing it first.

[BeautifulEvil]

Merged this message into a new thread. https://alchemy-forums.forumotion.com/practical-alchemy-f4/the-calx-of-gold-t494.htm

[Jerry]

Considering they (old books) are the source material that Hudson (et all) have drawn from......

Not exactly accurate. Hudson claims to have read between 5-600 books. I count about 29 books in his bibliography and about 15 scattered references in his 1994 paper, none of which could be considered classical. But the total number 45 or so, is between ‘five’ and ‘six hundred’.

[Jerry]

You're just wrong here.
Just admit your judgements are premature and not scientifically supported.
You basically already have by saying you've taken McLean's word for the truth.

Well, I also have the ability to think clearly and assess evidence. I was asked for as source that claims against it and I provided one. You object to it because you are a “true believer”. The rules are very simple. If you make the claims, you provide the proofs.

Adam Mclean, who is a well known scholar of Alchemy, came to the conclusion this was a scam. I also came to the same conclusion but I looked at a different set of evidence. We both reached the same conclusion independently of each other.

David Hudson was not a chemist or physicist, but he sure cranks out a lot of technical information. It would appear that David Hudson himself was scammed out of everything he had, the house, the farm, his money, etc. When the money was all gone, he was left out in the desert so the vultures could pick on the remaining flesh.

Hudson was a farmer with some interest in gold mining. He didn’t have any technical knowledge of atomic orbitals and high tech analysis. All he had was money. He did though have a chemist working for him, who I suspect is the originator of all his patents and other stuff. His chemist was either totally incompetent or just telling Hudson what he wanted to hear in order to get more money.

I quote from his 1994 paper, “The best current known deposit of platinum group metals lies in South Africa and produces only about 1/3 oz./ton. David was able to obtain 2400 oz./ton.”

ROFL

Of course this is only my opinion based on my weak background of quantitative and instrumental analysis

[Dizardos]

You said it has nothing to do with alchemy.
I am arguing that, not that everything Hudson said is true.
If the a process used by a popular alchemist (Glauber) produces the same
result as one used by those working in what they claim to be m-state,
then I have proven m-state has to do with alchemy.

Did you even know that it is synonymous with calx of gold before you rejected it?

As a matter of fact many alchemists were also chemists so therefore it proves nothing. Boyle's process for the creation of phosphorus is neither alchemical for he was an alchemist and chemist. Even though many often practice alchemy and chemistry there is a great difference between them. Chemistry is the manipulation of dead matter, while alchemy is the manipulation of living matter. Considering this fact it is clear that M-state materials belong to the area of chemistry and not to alchemy. It might be said that M-state materials have the ability to heal, but so do many pharmaceutical products up to a certain extent. It proves nothing.

Neither does the word 'calx of gold' prove anything when the context is not clear. Alchemists never were the most lucid when describing their processes. I could have called it body of magnesia, Mars and a myriad of other names.

David Hudson was a sophist and a chemist, but never an alchemist. Who cares what he has read? During every age known there have been people who have managed to turn their riches into ashes and sulfurous smoke stirred to it by visions of ambitious alchemical rewards. Such a feat requires no difficulty. For every one who is successful a thousand manage to do this. No, even more, ten thousand!

M-state is no alchemy, but do not hold my word for it.The only living adept I 'know' says so (and just so that it is clear 'know' is a far too big word to use). It is no use to ask me to speak more on this issue, since I will not. You are free to believe that I am merely playing a game of bluff poker.

I believe that I can also speak in the name of others when I say that M-state materials can and will be of great use to our civilization, especially in the fields of energy and transportation, but it remains no alchemy.

Have a nice day everyone!

Dizardos

[phliosehea]

Considering they (old books) are the source material that Hudson (et all) have drawn from......

Not exactly accurate. Hudson claims to have read between 5-600 books. I count about 29 books in his bibliography and about 15 scattered references in his 1994 paper, none of which could be considered classical. But the total number 45 or so, is between ‘five’ and ‘six hundred’.

Yes I suppose you're right...poor choice of words on my part. Not the source per se' - but he did try rather hard to link the two -would've been more accurate.

[phliosehea]

Curiouser and curiouser...don't suppose you could be persuaded to post an introduction Dizardos?

[theFool]

I would be glad to see of what you have to say about Agricola praising the virtues of gold, metallic gold, no secrecy at all. The book is here: ( http://www.rexresearch.com/alchemy/agricola.htm ). Those are the chapters:

Chapter 1: How to extract the Gold's Virtue and to prepare a wholesome Medicine
Chapter 2: Gold Oil.
Chapter 3: Oil of Gold Prepared in the Common Way.
Chapter 4: Another Process for the Preparation of Oil of Gold.
Chapter 4: How to Prepare the Quintessence of Gold.
Chapter 5: A Common Way of Making Potable Gold.
Chapter 6: How the Purging ( ) is to be prepared.
Chapter 7: How to Prepare Diaphoretic Gold.
Chapter 8: How to Prepare a Mercurium Vivum from Gold and Other Metals.
Chapter 9: How to Prepare Vitriol from Gold.

Lets see some selected excerpts:

Laminated gold has to be dissolved in Aqua Regis. When it is dissolved, the oil of tartar (for Mutratar is tartarum', the letters have only been transposed) has to be poured in drop by drop. A strong roaring and effervescence will arise, But the drops must be put in only one after another because of the fast ebullition. When the fermentation has stopped and everything is calm, the liquid has to be distilled off (it can also be just poured down while the gold precipitates). Some powder is left. Warm water has to be poured on that to remove the sharpness.

Aqua Regia to dissolve gold and rising the ph with potassium carbonate, seems close to the methods of Hudson.

In another recipie, he says how to calcine metallic gold and speaks about its meicinal virtues:

...Then it [gold] is correctly and well calcined, and you may be sure that you cannot get a better calcination. It will become so subtle that it can easily be used in medicines for several sicknesses without any further preparation, for this calx is sweet and not contaminated by any corrosives.

It is said that white powder of gold has a sweet taste.

Is Agricola a classical alchemy writer?
What do you believe of the mythical aurum potabile? Can it be prepared without metallic gold?

Dizardos wrote:

Neither does the word 'calx of gold' prove anything when the context is not clear. Alchemists never were the most lucid when describing their processes. I could have called it body of magnesia, Mars and a myriad of other names.

I think here Agricola speaks clearly of metallic gold. The operation of calcination on gold, leads to calx of gold.

Chemistry is the manipulation of dead matter, while alchemy is the manipulation of living matter. Considering this fact it is clear that M-state materials belong to the area of chemistry and not to alchemy

I will agree with that. M-state is closer to chemistry. But m-state theory could be of great service to practical Alchemy. For example, a test could be developed to check if a substance is "dead" or not.

[Dizardos]

I would be glad to see of what you have to say about Agricola praising the virtues of gold, metallic gold, no secrecy at all.

Laminated gold has to be dissolved in Aqua Regis. When it is dissolved, the oil of tartar (for Mutratar is tartarum', the letters have only been transposed) has to be poured in drop by drop. A strong roaring and effervescence will arise, But the drops must be put in only one after another because of the fast ebullition. When the fermentation has stopped and everything is calm, the liquid has to be distilled off (it can also be just poured down while the gold precipitates). Some powder is left. Warm water has to be poured on that to remove the sharpness.

Aqua Regia to dissolve gold and rising the ph with potassium carbonate, seems close to the methods of Hudson.

In another recipie, he says how to calcine metallic gold and speaks about its meicinal virtues:

...Then it [gold] is correctly and well calcined, and you may be sure that you cannot get a better calcination. It will become so subtle that it can easily be used in medicines for several sicknesses without any further preparation, for this calx is sweet and not contaminated by any corrosives.

It is said that white powder of gold has a sweet taste.

Is Agricola a classical alchemy writer?
What do you believe of the mythical aurum potabile? Can it be prepared without metallic gold?

Agricola is definitely a classical writer. The question nevertheless remains how one would interpret the work. It can be taken literally, symbolically and anything in between the extremes. I would interpret the 'laminated gold' method as the second step out of the three great ones that have to be undertaken. As you will notice in many works they warn not to drown your substance in too much moisture and therefore it has to be distilled off (although not in this text). Such warnings have no place in the manipulation of M-state materials. While this may sound as weak arguments concerning your first Agricola quote, I will state in my defense that there is no mention of the tireless repetitions of this process necessary for true M-state material which if the text could be taken completely literally it would have mentioned this.

The calcination Agricola refers to might just as well refer to a calcination with their water which produces potable gold if not taken literally, since it has been said more than once that chemists burn with fire and alchemists with water (and I do not doubt that many will say that this reference is to aqua regia). Agricola says the following:

"This is certain and true: gold may be prepared as anyone wishes, without the universal menstruum of the ancient ones --- it is yet not the ancients' aurum, for their gold is a different gold.

I can imagine that Basil Valentine means antimony by the term Grey Wolf - much less Paracelsus. Although many call antimony the Grey Wolf, it is only to be understood figuratively and is only enigmatically true. Is it that antimony, or the Grey Wolf, refines gold and adds a beautiful lustre to it? But how does it help the Philosophical Work? For all philosophers admit unanimously that their gold is no common gold. Yes, their gold dissolves gold. If then it is not common gold, how can it be processed through antimony? Common gold is dead and powerless, unless it be dissolved through the prima materia out of which it was born, and be born a second time. Only then will it really become Philosophical Gold and aurum potable, a small dose of which can drive away all sicknesses in a short time."

I believe a fair number of Philosophers did not start out with gold to create their aurum potabile.

Everyone should follow their own path despite what others might say, since it is your own future that depends on it. If it follows in the tracks of others, that could be good. If not, who cares? The majority is never right anyway. Words do not guarantee an earthly heaven.

Have a nice day!

Dizardos

[theFool]

The question nevertheless remains how one would interpret the work.

Unfortunatelly, I haven't posted the whole recipie of Agricola. When I read it whole, I was convinced he was speaking of metallic gold. But yes, a lot of alchemical writings refer to different kind of gold and they can trick you. After all, even Agricolla himself could be tricked by that.

"This is certain and true: gold may be prepared as anyone wishes, without the universal menstruum of the ancient ones --- it is yet not the ancients' aurum, for their gold is a different gold."

Actually, all those recipies use a menstruum to further treat the calx, they don't use the calx as is. Maybe the medicinal quality is in the menstruum and the calx just help it somehow. I just mentioned the recipie to show that maybe the old operators knew of "m-state" and used it as an ingridient, not as a Stone.

Nice arguments, thanks for the construcful conversation!

[theFool]

Let us see also what John French says on the matter in the book "Art of distillation". Maybe he is not so well known. Mention that he was a doctor interested in medicines, not an alchemist. He speaks in plain language, not hidden. If you read him, all of the text, you will understand that when he says gold he means gold. After all, he uses aqua regia to dissolve it, what could else could be so undissolvable? Look:

Dissolve pure fine gold in aqua regis according to art (..) which clear solution put into a large glass of a wide neck and upon it pour drop by drop oil of tartar made per deliquium, until the aqua regis which before was yellow becomes clear and white, for that is a sign that all calx of gold is settled to the bottom. Then let it stand all night, and in the morning pour off the clear liquor, and wash the calx four or five times with common spring water, being warmed, and dry it with a most gentle heat.

He says it clearly: Calx of gold; metallic gold. Then he continues by using a special menstruum to make the medicine, he does not consume the calx of gold as is of course.
And again, under the title "Tincture of Gold" he describes a similar process and precipitates by the use of spirit of salt (hydrochloric acid) a white snow:

...By a long digestion some part of the gold will fall to the bottom like a white snow...

Gold falls down as a white snow, he says it clear. If you ever have made yourself an m-state precip by the wet method (by method 4) you cannot miss it. After adding the HCl, it falls slowly and is very lightweigh. Actually, upon close examination you will find that the falling particles have branches just like a snowflake!
But don't take my word for it. Try it yourself. After all, it goes like this: ora, lege et labora!

[Dizardos]

Let us see also what John French says on the matter in the book "Art of distillation". Maybe he is not so well known. Mention that he was a doctor interested in medicines, not an alchemist. He speaks in plain language, not hidden. If you read him, all of the text, you will understand that when he says gold he means gold. After all, he uses aqua regia to dissolve it, what could else could be so undissolvable? Look:

Dissolve pure fine gold in aqua regis according to art (..) which clear solution put into a large glass of a wide neck and upon it pour drop by drop oil of tartar made per deliquium, until the aqua regis which before was yellow becomes clear and white, for that is a sign that all calx of gold is settled to the bottom. Then let it stand all night, and in the morning pour off the clear liquor, and wash the calx four or five times with common spring water, being warmed, and dry it with a most gentle heat.

He says it clearly: Calx of gold; metallic gold. Then he continues by using a special menstruum to make the medicine, he does not consume the calx of gold as is of course.
And again, under the title "Tincture of Gold" he describes a similar process and precipitates by the use of spirit of salt (hydrochloric acid) a white snow:

...By a long digestion some part of the gold will fall to the bottom like a white snow...

Gold falls down as a white snow, he says it clear. If you ever have made yourself an m-state precip by the wet method (by method 4) you cannot miss it. After adding the HCl, it falls slowly and is very lightweigh. Actually, upon close examination you will find that the falling particles have branches just like a snowflake!
But don't take my word for it. Try it yourself. After all, it goes like this: ora, lege et labora!

John French is indeed lucid in his writings. There are no doors that need to opened there, but the reality is that some of his experiments cannot be shown in the sunlight. At one point for example he describes a process by which one should be able to condense the rays of the sun and the moon via a lens focused on a sponge into powder (I believe I am able to say large heaps of powder in a short time). Since it is a sponge we could deduce that it is likely that the sponge is wet, but the fact remains that the influences of the sun and moon only create ammoniumnitrate on this wet sponge. This ammoniumnitrate is able to cause the spontaneous generation of the smallest of plants, but more than this will not happen.

While the above may sound very negative, I must say that John French's insight into distillation can be very useful. Most writers only tell a part of the truth, so one still needs to puzzle to see how it all fits together.

I do not doubt that John French was honest to his readers with the knowledge that he had, but alchemy never was an easy study and especially in that age where one had limited access to information. Alchemy uses allegories, parables, symbolism and hides the truth in every possible way, even in the form of processes. It is in the days of the week, the months, the letters and order of the alphabet, numbers, mythologies, religions, mystery studies, languages and tales for children. One cannot look somewhere and not see it. Thus the ancients truly did attempt to offer everyone an equal chance to find it.

If you believe it is the true process, then try it and see if the theory corresponds to practice. Not just the signs, because I do not doubt that the signs are as described, but also the effects. I wish you good luck.

The main problem nowadays is that many write about alchemy while having no knowledge of actual processes. It is irrelevant whether or not they have studied alchemy their whole life. In fact it makes it only worse when one has studied his or her whole life without being successful and then decides to write a book about 'the way it should be done'. It creates an avalanche of confusion and chaos that takes along many loyal followers to the final destination: failure.

Have a nice day!

Dizardos

[solomon levi]

Well, I also have the ability to think clearly and assess evidence. I was asked for as source that claims against it and I provided one. You object to it because you are a “true believer”. The rules are very simple. If you make the claims, you provide the proofs.

Right. You claimed m-state has nothing to do with alchemy and provided no proof.
I am not a believer in anything. I despise belief. I am very practical. I have DONE things, not
believed things. I said I KNOW m-state is alchemy, not I believe... I know because I have done work,
not scholarly work, actual hands-on work. I've been ingesting this stuff off and on for nearly 10 years.
I don't have beliefs about it. You, on the other hand, are a believer - disbeliever - same thing.
How much "m-state" have you made? Taken? Have you worked beside anyone competent
in m-state technology and witnessed their art?

You've been asked what your proof is that m-state has nothing to do with alchemy and all you
provided is Adam McLean, which isn't proof at all.

[solomon levi]

You said it has nothing to do with alchemy.
I am arguing that, not that everything Hudson said is true.
If the a process used by a popular alchemist (Glauber) produces the same
result as one used by those working in what they claim to be m-state,
then I have proven m-state has to do with alchemy.

Did you even know that it is synonymous with calx of gold before you rejected it?

As a matter of fact many alchemists were also chemists so therefore it proves nothing. Boyle's process for the creation of phosphorus is neither alchemical for he was an alchemist and chemist. Even though many often practice alchemy and chemistry there is a great difference between them. Chemistry is the manipulation of dead matter, while alchemy is the manipulation of living matter. Considering this fact it is clear that M-state materials belong to the area of chemistry and not to alchemy. It might be said that M-state materials have the ability to heal, but so do many pharmaceutical products up to a certain extent. It proves nothing.

Neither does the word 'calx of gold' prove anything when the context is not clear. Alchemists never were the most lucid when describing their processes. I could have called it body of magnesia, Mars and a myriad of other names.

David Hudson was a sophist and a chemist, but never an alchemist. Who cares what he has read? During every age known there have been people who have managed to turn their riches into ashes and sulfurous smoke stirred to it by visions of ambitious alchemical rewards. Such a feat requires no difficulty. For every one who is successful a thousand manage to do this. No, even more, ten thousand!

M-state is no alchemy, but do not hold my word for it.The only living adept I 'know' says so (and just so that it is clear 'know' is a far too big word to use). It is no use to ask me to speak more on this issue, since I will not. You are free to believe that I am merely playing a game of bluff poker.

I believe that I can also speak in the name of others when I say that M-state materials can and will be of great use to our civilization, especially in the fields of energy and transportation, but it remains no alchemy.

Have a nice day everyone!

Dizardos

I've stated in another post that it isn't alchemy ala Fulcanelli's definition.
But that isn't what Jerry's talking about.
If it is, I have already agreed with him and there is nothing to argue.

[Sponsored content]