Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc Reply with quote OP "lk" IRON STARS, SULPHUR MOONS etc - Kervran himself found that superheated nitrogen, N2, transmutes in the body into carbon-monoxide, CO. A wood stove in a room can heat the air next to the red-hot pipe enough to give people in the room headaches. He found that this is from the nitrogen converting into carbon-monoxide. It's not from carbon-monoxide from the smoke ordinarily. The same happens to welders. If they don't get enough ventilation, the hot nitrogen converts to carbon-monoxide in their bodies. How it happens isn't clear, but it seems to be well substantiated that that's what does happen. It's likely that the conversion occurs somewhere in the body. Whether electrical energy is involved isn't known yet. As Kervran showed in his book, N:N converts into C:O; so one of the nitrogen atoms takes a proton and one neutron from the other. N:N=>C:O = 7:14::7:14 => 6:12::8:16; 7-1=6; 7+1=8; 14-2=12; 14+2=16. The other transmutations below mostly involve adding or subtracting one atom to or from another to make a third one. LIST OF TRANSMUTATION FORMULAE - I'll start with this list and later try to discuss solar system examples of evidence of possible transmutation. - From Louis Kervran's book, Biological Transmutations, I obtained a lot of info on transmutations that seem to be common on Earth in mostly biological systems, but also in non-biological ones. - Many of the following combinations of elements were found by Kervran to be probably real transmutation formulae. The rest show mathematically possible combinations. The atomic numbers and atomic masses have to add up on both sides of the equations as shown in the second more detailed list below. For example, Be.4:9 = Na-N(11-7,23-14); Be 4:9 = Na 11:23 - N 7:14; 11-7=4, 23-14=9.
I think the list can go further, but I think I lost the rest of what I once had.
Last edited by lk on Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:17 am; edited 5 times in total
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:19 pm Post subject: Reply with quote OP "lk"
SULPHUR & IRON - In the iron sun thread there was discussion lately of the sulphur that is found on the sun. Mozina and Upriver seem to be agreed that the surface of the sun below the photosphere is iron, possibly molten or semi-molten on the surface, much like Birkeland's terella experiment with an iron globe subjected to electrical discharges. Mozina was also mentioning sulphur found on the surface, which he speculated was volcanic, like on Earth. The transmutation list above shows what element combinations are likely sources of each element up to Rubidium, element #37. - Electrical discharges of low power may be able to produce some transmutations, but those of greater power seem to be able to produce many more transmutations, maybe producing all of the elements. Radioactive elements are able to produce many elements via fissioning. And the electrical stress of the environment may determine which elements are radioactive. In other words, elements that are now radioactive on Earth in its current electrical environment may once have been stable in a different environment. SULPHUR - Referring to the list above, you can see that sulphur can come from 2 oxygen atoms. Oxygen can come from nitrogen or sodium or carbon plus helium. Since all atoms probably started out small, we should look for what smaller atoms each atom came from, which should eventually lead to hydrogen. So nitrogen can come from carbon and oxygen; or carbon from boron plus hydrogen; boron from lithium plus helium. - We're stuck there. The list doesn't show how to get from helium back to hydrogen by this normal transmutation route. But, as I think Millennium said recently, hydrogen can be compressed into a neutron, so 6 atoms of hydrogen could yield one helium by having 4 hydrogens form neutrons. Maybe someone can give the conventional explanation of fusion of helium from hydrogen. - To recap for sulphur, we have S < O+O, O < C+He, C < B+H, B < Li+He, Li < 2He-H-n, He < 2H+4n, n < H [The symbol < means "comes from"]. IRON - The route for iron is: Fe < Si+4Li or Cl+3Li, Si < C+O, Cl < Na or F or Mg or Si etc. Silicon seems to be the most common route, and we already have the route for its progenitors, C and O, from the sulphur route. - I believe Thornhill has stated his theory that the sulphur on Io and Europa came from oxygen from the ice of those moons of Jupiter. Ice is water, H2O < 2H+O [via normal chemistry, not transmutation]. On the sun I think the sulphur is likely to come from electrical transmutation of rather than from Earth-like vulcanism. If there's not enough oxygen or water on the sun to produce sulphur, it could come from carbon and helium, the carbon again from boron and boron from lithium as above. - The photosphere of the sun rotates at different rates at different latitudes. I think the equator rotates at about 24 days per rotation, much faster than higher latitudes rotate, taking about 35 days or so near the poles I think. If the sun's surface below the photosphere is solid iron, the whole surface must all rotate at the same number of days per rotation. There could be volcanoes on a solid surface, but how would sulphur come up from a volcano made of iron? If the sun's surface is molten iron, then volcanoes might be unlikely. I'm thinking there may be sulphur-spewing geysers there like on Io. The geysers on Io are said to move many miles after a number of months or years. - Anyway, these transmutation formulae can be used to determine also what material was electrically-formed into iron pipes on Earth etc. - I noted elsewhere that some comets contain sulphur. Perhaps sulphur is the best clue for transmutation via electrical discharges.
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject: Reply with quote OP "lk"
This is from Wikipedia. Is it correct? What about ion abundances? Photospheric composition (by mass) Hydrogen - 73.46 %[73] Helium__ - 24.85 % Oxygen__ - 0.77 % Carbon__ - 0.29 % Iron_____ - 0.16 % Sulfur____ - 0.12 % Neon_____ - 0.12 % Nitrogen__ - 0.09 % Silicon____ - 0.07 % Magnesium - 0.05 %
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:17 am Post subject: Reply with quote OP "lk" TRANSMUTATION LINKS ON THIS SITE For more discussion of transmutation, you'll find the word transmute or transmutation on each of these webpages, if you're careful. SUN - ions of iron produced by electrical discharge transmutation in the photosphere - <old forum link no longer valid> STARS - Mira: A Star with a Comet's Tail - there is theoretical elemental transmutation going on in stars - <old forum link no longer valid> STARS - EU explanation for stellar "main sequence"? - All spectrograms are reading is the surface transmutation of elements - <old forum link no longer valid> <old forum link no longer valid> PLANETS - Venus & Earth - ability to transmute - <old forum link no longer valid> PLANETS - Mars in Miniature - Could the same electric arcs that are thought to have carved the Red Planet transmute elements - reforming the atomic structure of silicon? - http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... iature.htm PLANETS: MARS - TPOD / Transmutation - electric discharges on Mars could have transmuted silicon into iron and reformed silicon dioxide rock layers into the vast fields of hematite spherules - <old forum link no longer valid> PLANETS: MARS - 150m wide "black hole" found on Mars - 'Dalmatian Spots' of Mars" ... Elemental transmutation - <old forum link no longer valid> PLANETS - Sulfurous Mars - electric discharges on Mars could have transmuted silicon into iron and reformed silicon dioxide rock layers http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... usmars.htm MOONS - Electrical Rilles of Europa [and Europa's neighbor Io] http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... rilles.htm MOONS - Expanding Planets? - Europa ... produced by a transmutation of elements - <old forum link no longer valid> <old forum link no longer valid> MOONS - Expanding Planets? - sulfur produced by a transmutation - <old forum link no longer valid> MOONS - Titan's Strange Atmosphere - interactions will exchange and transmute material http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... sphere.htm MOONS - Titan's Strange Atmosphere - neutrons may be captured and change isotopic ratios or generate radioactive species and in that process transmute elements in the ejected material - http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... sphere.htm MOONS - Titan - The Enigma (2) - Subsequent electrical interactions between planets and moons would serve to transfer surface materials and atmospheres, transmute elements etc - http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... itan-2.htm MOONS - Titan Tells Strange Tales - strong electric field in an ejection event can accelerate charged particles and transmute elements. For example, nitrogen-14 - <old forum link no longer valid>
EARTH - Libya's Kebira Crater - highly energetic electric discharge transmutes elements http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... kebira.htm - Libya's Kebira Crater - transmuting oxygen from water ice into sulfur http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... crater.htm - China's Mysterious Iron Pipes - These "tubes" of electricity may have left behind the mark of their passing by transmuting the silicon dioxide of Mt. Baigong (and the Navajo sandstone) - thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/arch07/071109chinapipes.htm - China's Mysterious Iron Pipes - I can see how rotating electric currents might transmute elements — or, at least, minerals - <old forum link no longer valid> - Electric fossilization - energetic discharges of sufficient size can transmute elements - <old forum link no longer valid> - Electric fossilization - energetic discharges of sufficient size can transmute elements ... mesas of the American Southwest - <old forum link no longer valid> - Dinosaur size problem - possible process by which radioactivity within the Earth can transmute one element to another more bulky element? - <old forum link no longer valid> - Basic Physics: Insights - disintegration of the alphas, or from transmutation reactions - <old forum link no longer valid> - Holoscience Synopsis ponderings - Biological enzymes are capable of utilizing resonant nuclear catalysis to transmute elements - <old forum link no longer valid> - Why only Chemistry is not enough? - <old forum link no longer valid> - Wow, Australian lichtenbergs - significant plasma strikes and enough electric potential can transmute elements, metamorphosize rock etc - <old forum link no longer valid>
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:27 am Post subject: Reply with quote OP "junglelord"
My investigations into the history of electricity has brought me here as well. Meyl Scalar Technology book states that the growth of the earth is due to Neutrino conversion at the core of the Earth's reactor. His Vortex Theory of a Hydromagnetic Field is very convincing. This Vortex Theory accounts for all particles from two opposite direction vortex theory. The electron potential vortex and the positron eddy current vortex. Light is a two particle vortex rotating pair of the electron/positron vortex model. An electron is created with a positron eddy current vortex enrolled in a potential vortex electron. With this fundamental model all other mass particles can be derived.
Later in the book not quoted here, He explains photosynethsis with this model and the molecular shape of chlorophil. It captures a neutrino and makes an electron. Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the sun, and more than 50 trillion solar electron neutrinos pass through the human body every second.
Here is Meyl's theory of the use of Neutrinos as the fundamental source of new creation with a Z Pinch Fusion at the core of the earth.
Fascinating.
Earth's core as a converter of neutrinos I proceed from the assumption that the conversion of neutrinos and materialization in elementary particles takes place in the inner core. For the conversion no energy at all is used, because the inner energy together with the outer energy of the particle amounts to zero. The neutrinos merely have to be remodelled into another structure and for that they at first have to be slowed down with the help of the oscillating interaction.
During this process of slowing down, as said, no heat is formed because in the case of a mass less particle no energy can be set free in the domain where the classical law of conservation of energy is valid. Only after completion of the process of materialization we are able to detect mass and energy of neutrinos.
But if the oscillating interaction is taken as a basis, the oscillation with opposite phase between particle and earth's core, then contrary to all expectations a cooling down takes place. If the particle has reached its region of destination in the core, then the oscillations are overlapping. Mathematically seen they are added with reversed sign; they thus are subtracted. The result of the mutual compensation is the decrease of the thermal oscillation and the cooling down of the region which was expected.
In addition the formed particles with a mass mutually contract and in doing so are further cooling down, as we will derive. The physical limit of the process of contraction and cooling down is formed by absolute zero, at which no thermal oscillation at all occurs anymore, so that superconduction becomes possible with the result of giant electric currents and magnetic fields, which can be detected even at the earth's surface in damped form, for instance with a compass.
The necessary heat energy is flowing towards the quick-frozen inner core from the outside, principally from the outer core. Here, in the core, from the neutrinos slowed down to the speed of light various elementary particles are formed. Most of them immediately fall apart, to form other configurations. In the end only electrons and protons are preserved, which, as the only stable particles, can't fall apart anymore. These again are trying hard to take the state of an atom, which however needs very much space with the large distance between atomic nucleus and hull. Under the high pressure the enveloping electrons therefore will time and again fall into the nucleus to form neutrons together with the protons.
The neutrons need no atomic hull and can, as is well-known of neutron stars, take an extremely high density. In the case of the earth's core the neutrons however cannot be stabilized. The contraction to a neutron is accompanied by a corresponding drop in pressure, so that the neutron falls apart again. A continual oscillation of size is formed, with which the neutrinos again interact. With that also the high density of the earth's core would be explicable simultaneously.
In earth's outer core the various atoms and isotopes are formed, which in the sum release more energy than they absorb in their fusion processes. Here the fusion oven rages, which supplies the inner core with heat energy. The formed matter is pushed further to the outside, rolls as a viscous mass through the earth's mantle and collects the surplus radiation and heat from the fusion oven. With this model of explanation we now can tackle the calculation of the growth of the earth.
Inner structure of the earth Next the question is raised: How fast does our earth actually grow? The calculated growth, distributed over the 200 million years, results in a yearly increase in the diameter of the earth of less than 0.1 mm. Carey assumes 0.04 mm per year and Owen only 0.01 mm per year.
Actually the young earth must have been somewhat bigger than calculated, because as a result of the smaller gravitational acceleration the density of the matter must have been smaller. But this changes nothing to the relations, because the less dense earth was surrounded by likewise less dense water, the water-level nevertheless reached the peaks, as already calculated.
For indicating absolute linear measures and the calculation of the gravitational accleration the respective density should be considered. In most calculations the density is cancelled out, so that as well can be calculated with an unchanged density. A grave error however lies in the assumption of a linear growth. Hilgenberg assumes an exponential growth and gives as a reason for the empirical approach of the e-functionthe 'law of organic growth".
In order to now not to speculate or to postulate in the same manner, we will derive and found our approach. If namely the earth grows, then its core of fusion also grows, which causes the growth to take place accelerated, etc. A customer of a bank, who sees his amount of money grow according to such a regularity, will be given information immediately about the growth rate with a compound interest calculation.
But how big is the growing fusion reactor of our planet? According to today's level of knowledge about the structure of the earth the inner core is surrounded by the outer core and that again by the earth's mantle. On top floats the thin, but firm earth's crust, on which we live. The inner core has a radius of nearly 1390 km, the outer core stretches to a radius of 3500 km, whereas the crust is only between 10 and 78 km thick, dependent on the geographical latitude
_________________ Peace, Live Long and Prosper.
Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:46 am Post subject: Reply with quote OP "lk"
- The neutrino expansion idea is interesting except for the 200 million years figure. I doubt if the Earth is more than a few ten thousand years old, just as Venus is likely less than ten thousand years old. The Earth and other bodies likely expand rather rapidly, not gradually. Charles Cagle has a somewhat similar theory. He says neutrons, not neutrinos, form within bodies, causing the expansions, which are rapid and periodic. - The guesses about millions of years figures seem to be based on uniformitarian assumptions. Robert Gentry has a website that has excellent evidence that Earth's basement granite rock crystallized almost instantly instead of over millions or billions of years.
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:49 am Post subject: Neutrinos Reply with quote OP "SeaSmith"
LK,
I meant to mention the other day when you and Stephen posted that list of elemental questions, that we might want to add: What is the Nutrino Sea?
All the Aether - hyperDimensional theorists seem eventually to allude to it, if not swim in it.
s
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: Reply with quote OP "lk"
- Thornhill considers the aether to be a neutrino sea, but he doesn't accept concepts of hyper-dimensions. We've had occasional discussions on the forum last year about the neutrino sea and the aether. Do you want to revive any such discussions? It might be productive. - By the way, here are links to Gentry's material, which show that basement granite rock crystallized almost instantly: http://www.halos.com/reports/index.htmhttp://www.halos.com/reports/ex-nihilo- ... eation.htm
Last edited by lk on Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:24 pm; edited 1 time in total
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: Reply with quote OP "Krackonis"
lk wrote: - The neutrino expansion idea is interesting except for the 200 million years figure. I doubt if the Earth is more than a few ten thousand years old, just as Venus is likely less than ten thousand years old. The Earth and other bodies likely expand rather rapidly, not gradually. Charles Cagle has a somewhat similar theory. He says neutrons, not neutrinos, form within bodies, causing the expansions, which are rapid and periodic. - The guesses about millions of years figures seem to be based on uniformitarian assumptions. Robert Gentry has a website that has excellent evidence that Earth's basement granite rock crystallized almost instantly instead of over millions or billions of years.
Well it might not fit with your conception, but Earth compared to Venus or Titan shows it is completely different. Substantial differences exist which belittle the notion we are an extremely young planet. Young, perhaps, but 10,000 years? We have historical rock petraglyph evidence which is older than that. Venus figurines go back over 75,000 years.
Expansion seems to be accelerating, if you look at the ocean floor topographical maps, even if you remove the dates the increase in expansion speed is evident.
Even if the basement granite, judging by radiohalo evidence, says that the rock solidified quickly, which I believe is correct given the electrical nature of our birth and the hits we have recieved.
As to thinking of 10,000 years, I can't picture a more biblical account, but as we know 'creation' took place in the skies, not the ground.
I think we are on a very old planet, millions of years at least. Just looking at atmosphereic content and of course, the filling of the oceans from whatever filled it.. (Some have suggested bacteria secreted the water by converting other materials...)
Anyways, not trying to bust your idea up, just pointing out my problem with it. ;P _________________ Neil Thompson
Krackonis
"We are the universe, trying to understand itself." - Delenn
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: Reply with quote OP "lk"
- Venus figurines might show an age by conventional dating methods of 75,000 years or more as you say, but our EU theorists don't accept conventional dating methods, as they're based on uniformitarian assumptions of gradual change and of constant decay rates for radioactive elements under all conditions. EU proponents theorize that electrical conditions can greatly change the decay rates. - I said Earth is likely a few tens of thousands of years old, not ten thousand, if I was unclear.
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: Reply with quote OP "Rduke"
I don't understand the need or desire to estimate the age of the earth so young. Saying the earth is younger then 100,000 years is going to be taken on the very best day as a naive fundamentalist stance and the scoffing will haunt EU theory like an albatross until the suns circuit overloads and erases humanity from this particular reality.
I do not see why the earth could not be many billions of years old with virtually no impact on EU concepts and principals...
Granted that the effects of the EU may play havoc with age dating technologies, fossilization, sediment layering and so forth ...however that is no reason to paint ourselves into a precarious corner ...
Especially when so much information is coming out that is so damaging to the mainstream consensus in favor of EU.
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:41 am Post subject: Reply with quote OP "junglelord"
I have to second that. The universe is quite possibly constant. The earth is at least 4 billion years old as far as I can see from science. The EU takes this dating process I believe. Correct me if I am wrong on the EU theory. _________________ Peace, Live Long and Prosper.
Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:00 am Post subject: Reply with quote OP "Plasmatic MnemoHistory"
By what method do we arrive at such a date? _________________ "Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"....Ayn Rand
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 2:16 am Post subject: Reply with quote OP "junglelord"
Modern Science I believe. 4.5 billion years old What age do you give it plasmatic? Or were you asking Ik? _________________ Peace, Live Long and Prosper.
Man lives in the sunlit world of what he believes to be reality. But there is, unseen by most, an underworld, a place that is just as real, but not as brightly lit... a Darkside."
bboyer
Re: Recovered: Transmutation on Stars, Planets etc
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:22 am Post subject: Reply with quote OP "biknewb"
This talk of neutrinos converting to electrons reminded me of Carl Frederick Krafft and his ether vortex (or "vortex ring") atomic theory.
Anyone here have an opinion about Krafft?
His self-published pamphlets are very interesting to someone like me who is NOT a physicist.
His basic building block was a "vortex ring," or neutrino.
Put two neutrinos together in one arrangement, you get an electron.
Reverse the arrangement, you get a proton.
Everything made perfect sense, though, like string theory, I got the feeling that it would be difficult to prove any of his ideas.
Years ago I tried to find a serious critique of his ideas, but could not find any. Mainstream science doesn't comment much on ether theories.
Anyone here have any positive or negative opinions of Krafft's vortex ring theory? _________________ Certifiable NON-scientist !!
