WELCOME PAGE  |  SITE MAP  |  WHAT'S NEW  |  GUEST AUTHORS  |  WALLPAPER  |  SHOP  |  ABOUT US        


     

   You Are Here:  HOME >> FORBIDDEN LETTERS >> RESPONSES



FORBIDDEN LETTERS MNU

The Forbidden Letters to Philip Gardiner

 THE FORBIDDEN LETTERS
The Letters
PS by Philip Gardiner  
Part 2 - by Paris 4
 NEWSLETTER BY PARIS 4
Newsletter 1
Newsletter 2
Newsletter 3
Newsletter 4
Newsletter 5
Newsletter 6
 RESPONSES 
Gary Osborn 
Magnus Strom
Hugo Palts  
CE2
David Goldberg
Daniel Srsa
Anna Moshiu
Anton Schneider
Thonus Furious (2 art.) 
Hanno Temming
Anna Pietropoli 
Otto Reich *
Jonathan Rice *
Don Willis
Antoine de la Censerie *
RFC *
John Fox
Mark O'Neill
Paula Johnson
John Hume
Guillaume Bernier
Guido Popp
Richard Morley
Maud Perkins
Emile de Beauregard
Paul Cambronne *
Hugo Dewasme
Maria El Safti *
J. & W. Kaposi
Heinz Lichtenberg
Anil Sriram
Onno de Bie
Pablo Uribe
Christine Liebreich
Julius Breitner
David E
Paula Braun
anonymous
F. P. da Silva
Julia Cicci
Mirjam de Heer
Jos Winter
Betty Martin
Peter Wong
HK
Joan Quin
Pedro Caz
Richard Cayce
Rene Loman
Ieounas Urano  
Sandra Milten
Harris & Strom
Ingo Berg
Wilhelm Wundt
Adam Kadmon
Bashir Ibn Salah
Beate Schulz
Judy Brooks  
W-M Editor  
Anonymous
Daniel Witzen
Zita Christensen
*recommended by the Paris 4
 RELATED LINKS
PhilipGardiner (WM)
Splendor Solis
Aliens in Archaeology
Gary Osborn
Philip Gardiner
Gardiner
Ed Ziomek
Alchemy

 


   




SCIENCE MYSTERIES STRANGE ARTIFACTS  |   MYSTIC PLACES  |   ANCIENT WRITINGS
  

 Note: The following letters are reprinted with permission.

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.

:::  Hosted by Lunarpages   :::  This Website was launched on March 26, 2002  ::: 

 Recommended: 1920x1200+ display, CSS and Java Script support : : : Hosted by Lunarpages
© 2002-2008, World-Mysteries.com, All Rights Reserved.