On the Forbidden Letters by Hugo Palts
Dear vistors of World Mysteries,
Ladies and gentlemen,
On May 3, 2006 I read an article on the Forbidden Letters in a newspaper. I
studied both the letters and the information in part 2, as well as the
Stockholm-article by Magnus Strom, with great interest, since I've been
reading on alchemy for several years.
And I am of the opinion by now that the letters contain the actual key to
the alchemical process.
But many questions of course remain. Two of those questions I would like to
present here.
Question number one:
Is there, in respect to the so called lightbody, any scientific knowledge on
a possible infrastructure for light in the natural human body?
And question number two:
By what process or force is the Work of the Sun actually performed? Could
cold-fusion for instance be involved in the process of fusing the two
opposites of alchemy?
Both questions probably remain unanswered as long as we cannot examine a
completed and 'outed' lightbody. But we can speculate, and this is the age
of Google and Wikipedia of course.
So what is it then Wikipedia gives on light in cells?
Here is a selection of what it has on biophotons:
"A biophoton is a photon of light emitted in some fashion from a biological
system. From a scientific point of view, there is no difference between such
a photon and a photon emitted by any other physical process. One might then
argue that it is more correct to attach the attribute biological to the
emission process, as in bioluminescence, because no specific biologicalness
can be attributed to the photons themselves, once they are emitted. However,
the term "bioluminescence" is generally reserved for higher intensity
luciferin/luciferase systems, while "biophoton emission" refers to the more
general phenomena of low-intensity photon emission from living systems.
It is universally accepted that biological systems emit photons. The term
"biophoton", however, has come to be associated in particular with photons
emitted by certain processes that are not yet well understood. Loose
terminology has caused some confusion as to what is actually known about the
phenomena of emission of photons from biological systems. There are several
associated definitions of the term biophoton, some of which are
unscientific, and some of which generate confusion among those who are not
scientists."
*
"In the 1920s, the Russian embryologist Alexander Gurwitsch reported
"ultraweak" photon emissions from living tissues in the UV-range of the
spectrum. He named them "mitogenetic rays", because he assumed that they had
a stimulating effect on cell division rates of nearby tissue. However,
common biochemical techniques as well as the fact that cell growth can
generally be stimulated and directed by radiation, though at much higher
amplitudes, evoked a general skepticism about Gurwitsch´s assumption.
Consequently, the mitogenetic radiation hypothesis was largely ignored.
However, after the end of World War II some Western scientists such as Colli
(Italy), Quickenden (Australia), Inaba (Japan) returned to the subject of
"mitogenetic radiation", but referred to the phenomenon as "dark
luminescence", "low level luminescence", "ultraweak bioluminescence", or
"ultraweak chemiluminescence". Their common basic hypothesis was that the
phenomenon was induced from rare oxidation processes and radical reactions.
While they added some general chemistry to the hypothesis of photon
emission, they did not address the more mysterious assumption of Gurwitsch
that the photons themselves, forming the so-called mitogenic rays,
stimulated cellular responses.
In the 1970s the then assistant professor Fritz-Albert Popp, and his
research group, at the University of Marburg (Germany) offered a slightly
more detailed analysis of the topic. They showed that the spectral
distribution of the emission fell over a wide range of wavelengths, from 200
to 800 nm. Popp further proposed the surprising and unprecedented hypothesis
that the radiation might be both semi-periodic and coherent in the quantum
mechanical sense. This hypothesis is still regarded as an outsider
hypothesis in the scientific community."
*
"In statistical mechanics and modern biology, the favored model of many
systems has to do with ensemble phenomena due to a large number of
interacting molecules, etc. In chaos theory, for example, it is often
suggested that the appearance of randomness in systems is due to a lack of
understanding of the larger scheme under which the system responds.
Regardless, this has led many who deal with large systems to employ
statistics to explain seemingly random events as outlying effects in
probability distributions. In this way, since there is normal and openly
visible bioluminescence in both many bacteria and other cells (see
bioluminescence article) which emit light by particular chemical reactions
due to proteins, then it can be inferred that due to the extremely small
number of photons in ultra-weak bioluminescence (the numbers given above
correspond to roughly a single photon per cell per month, assuming a typical
cell diameter of 10 micrometers) that these emissions are simply a random
by-product of cellular metabolism, in much the same way that solar flares on
some coarse level are thought of as simply random byproducts of nuclear
fusion on the surface of stars.
Slightly more specifically, cellular metabolism is thought to occur in a
chain of steps (which leads to dynamic cycles) in which each step involves
small energy exchanges (See ATP). Thus, due to a certain degree of
randomness according to the laws of thermodynamics (or statistical
mechanics), it must then be expected that, very rarely, some irregular steps
can occur. These are referred to as "outlying states." Thus due to
occasional physiochemical energy imbalance, a photon is occasionally
emitted.
According to this model there is no need to adopt a mysterious hypothesis,
like the mitogenetic radiation hypothesis. But, of course, it cannot exclude
it."
*
"In the absence of definite knowledge about the mechanisms that produce
these photons, some of the groups around F.A. Popp in Neuss/Germany, who
adopted the term "biophotons", have speculated that they may be involved in
various cell functions, such as mitosis, or even that they may be produced
and detected by the DNA in the cell nucleus. These speculations have not yet
resulted in a testable hypothesis.
Some groups have further speculated that these emissions may be part of a
system of cell-to-cell communication, which may be of greater complexity
than the modes of cell communication already known, such as chemical
signaling. These ideas even suggest that biophotons may be important for the
development of larger structures, such as organs and organisms.
Studies have shown that injured cells will let off a higher photon rate than
normal cells, and organisms with illnesses will likewise emit a brighter
light, implying a sort of distress signal being given off. [1] It's possible
that this minor form of communication first became common as single-cell
organisms began to cooperate to form complex organisms, using biophotons as
a less effective neural system."
And here is, a selection again, of what Wikipedia has on cold fusion:
"Cold fusion is a nuclear fusion reaction that takes place at or near room
temperature and normal pressure instead of the millions of degrees and
thousands of pounds of force required for plasma fusion reactions. The
popular press sometimes use the term "cold fusion" incorrectly, to describe
plasma fusion that occurs in table-top apparatus such as pyroelectric
fusion.
Cold fusion has two major lines of research: muon-catalyzed fusion and
condensed matter nuclear science (CMNS, previously called "low energy
nuclear reactions"). "Cold fusion" is often used to refer to the latter. The
former is not controversial but it consumes more energy than it generates.
It is not presented further in this article. Cold fusion of the latter type
was initially reported by Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons at the
University of Utah in March of 1989. Because it was presented as a new
practical source of energy, this announcement was front-page news for some
time, and generated a strong controversy, but the debate abated quickly and
CMNS was rejected by the mainstream scientific community.[1]
CMNS researchers say that they have been shunned by the scientific
establishment. They publish papers in peer reviewed scientific journals
specializing in related fields, but none have published in major scientific
journals such as Nature or Science after the initial controversy.
The latest mainstream review of research in CMNS occurred in 2004 when the
US Department of Energy set up a panel of eighteen scientists. The panelists
were evenly split on the following issue: "Is there compelling evidence for
power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid state
sources". Two thirds of the panel did not feel that there was any conclusive
evidence for low energy nuclear reactions, five found the evidence "somewhat
convincing" and one was entirely convinced. The nearly unanimous opinion of
the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual,
well-designed proposal for experiments in this field."
*
"Cold fusion's most significant problem in the eyes of many scientists is
that theories describing nuclear fusion can not explain how a cold fusion
reaction could occur at relatively low temperatures, and that there is
currently no accepted theory to explain cold fusion.[23][24]
In order for fusion to occur, the electrostatic force (Coulomb repulsion)
between the positively charged nuclei must be overcome. Once the distance
between the nuclei becomes comparable to one femtometre, the attractive
strong interaction takes over and the fusion may occur. However, the
repulsive Coulomb interaction between the nuclei separated by several
femtometres is greater than interactions between nuclei and electrons by
approximately six orders of magnitude. Overcoming that requires an energy on
the order of 10 MeV per nucleus, whereas the energies of chemical reactions
are on the order of several electron-volts; it is hard to explain where the
required energy would come from in room-temperature matter.
Huizenga, who was the head of the DoE ERAB panel that dismissed cold fusion
in 1989, concluded:[25]
"If the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional
processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has
been made in measuring the excess heat."
Nobel laureate Schwinger believes that "If a proven track record can be
established... you have to believe it". He also believes that cold fusion
does not violate conventional theory. As he puts it, "The defense [of cold
fusion] is simply stated: The circumstances of cold fusion are not those of
hot fusion".[26]
Cold fusion researchers have proposed several theoretical hypothesis to
explain the effect (see low energy nuclear reaction), but none has been
confirmed by experiment."
With my warmest wishes,
Hugo Palts.
Note: Reprinted with permission
The Forbidden Letters - Main Menu
