PDA

View Full Version : Philospher's mead



palecricket1
09-08-2005, 05:11 PM
This is a little experiment I'm conducting regarding a completely new type of yeast energizer that should decrease fermentation time signifcantly and improve flavor and body. The secret is in a group of metallic elements and the hydroxides thereof and their unique ability to enter in the m-state of matter. I'll try not to bore you with all the chemistry and physics behind them, but m-state elements are essential to life. It was noted in the "hard water" thread that when you use hard water, the yeast ferment better. This is possibly because hard water has not been stripped of its minerals, and particuarly the m-state elements that are naturally present in ground water. So to test this hypothesis, I've taken a sample of magnesium hydroxide and various m-state hydroxides like m-rhodium, m-gold, m-iridium, and m-palladium, and added approximately a quarter gram to a 1 liter batch of cyser. These aren't toxic like their metallic states; as a matter of fact your brain is an astounding 5% by mass of m-state rhodium, whereas metallic rhodium is quite toxic. I may add more later on. Assuming 1 liter is about 4 glasses of mead, and the standard oral dosage of m-state as a dietary supplement is about 1 pinch, this amount should be sufficient. I don't want to add too much because the magnesia will neutralize the acid if i do.

PS: The name, "philospher's mead", is derived from the fact that m-state elements are commonly referred to as the philosphers stone, due to the relatively rapid (a few hundred years) non-radioactive decay that eventually results in the formation of a stable isotope of m-state gold. Though I'm not quite sure if this truly is the same alchemical relic it's named after, it sure makes for a more attractive name than "m-state element mead" :P

WRATHWILDE
09-08-2005, 05:16 PM
Sounds interesting, keep us posted, and please do a side by side comparison with maybe fermaid K, and a control batch without nutrients. All from the same must of course.

Wrathwilde

palecricket1
09-08-2005, 05:47 PM
Well i think the data is already starting to speak for itsself. i pitched the yeast around a quarter past 5 today, and now, about half an hour later, the cyser's already bubbling away with only a little less vigour thatn my ginger capsicumel has. In addition it is foaming alot more than the ginger cap, and they both used the same yeast. The controls are, as expected, not as strongly fermenting.

Fortuna_Wolf
09-08-2005, 06:12 PM
*sigh*
Yay pseudoscience. Yer being had, but whatever.

What are the controls btw?

HomeBrew
09-08-2005, 07:41 PM
Yikes, Hudson's folly has made its way into meadmaking. I really mean no offense, but the "science" behind m-state elements is not very well accepted.

From a microbiological standpoint, I definitely agree that metallic elements are growth factors. It is true that "hard" water will contain trace amounts of these elements, therefore it would be better base for fermentations. However, I don't see the advantage of m-state metallic elements over typical metallic salts.

Peace.

Oskaar
09-08-2005, 09:25 PM
I'm with Homebrew on this one. I haven't run across any empirical evidence, or industry studies that support m-state elements in the science and art of wine/meadmaking.

I'd be very curious as to your recipe and the composition of your nutrients.

Cheers,

Oskaar

palecricket1
09-08-2005, 10:18 PM
you've got to understand one BIG thing if you really want to understand this: not everything you read online is correct. You've got to go to the source, to the people, to the books. That's were I've been. For example, when my father was diagnosed with prostate cancer I had a discussion with his doctor about possible non-invasive procedures, m-state therapy included. Now this is a very well educated man mind you, one of the best specialists on prostate cancer in the state. What he told me was that this is a very feasable choice of therapy. The only reason why it has not gained more mainstream interest is the fact that it is hard to observe and manipulate, making it unpredictable and impossible by our current chemical techniques to create a standardized medication. Essentially: it needs more study. And that's just what I intend to do. So before anyone goes off calling it a "pseudoscience" just be aware that it's not "psuedo", just understudied. Just like transistors were when they first came out.
The recipe was simple: 1/3 cup honey, unfiltered organic apple juice to make roughly 1 liter, cinnamon and allspice, and pasteur champagne yeast.
The control is just a regular fermentation, no nutrient except what is naturally present. The second is with approximately 1/4 gram of nutrient consisting of roughly 40% magnesium hydroxide, 60% mixed m-state elements, approximately 20% of which is gold and rhodium. These estimates are based on an incomplete assay of the substance; i need to repeat the assay to make sure my numbers are straight.

lostnbronx
09-08-2005, 10:41 PM
Palecricket,

I've never heard of m-state matter, or its reputed uses, so I cannot comment on that at all. However, I applaud your creative inquiries into this process. We've recently had people exploring lots of "pseudoscientific" routes in their mead making, with some very interesting results.

Please post about your progress -- I, for one, will be reading it with interest.

-David

palecricket1
09-08-2005, 10:57 PM
will do lostnbronx

one thing I almost forgot:
there are several factors that come to play here that are potential sources of error: 1) no sulfite was added nor will be added to either; the only sulfite present will be that which the yeast naturally produces. 2) both control and variable will be kept a considerable distance away from any electromagnetic devices. 3)both carboys will be opened on only very few occasions, but will be kept closed at all other times and will not be tasted until either racking or when fermentation is complete. 4) racking will be done away from any electromagnetic devices 5) an extra effort will be made to prevent contact with light.
In past experiments with m-states, and particularly with this batch of m-states, there was a significant mass reduction and the spontaneous formation of metallic particles when this type of electromagnetism-free environment with minimal air exposure was not kept.

Oskaar
09-09-2005, 01:11 AM
Hey Palecricket,

Bottom line is that I seldom believe most things I read online until I can reference them against other sources whose origins are not the internet. Regardless, the m-state elements are still not widely used/embedded in the wine/mead industry. Given that the mead industry lags behind winemaking in the number of studies, and the amount of money spent on those studies, I still see no qualitative or quantitative studies that bear out what you are saying. If I had, I'd have been all over it myself.

I have no aversion to new methodologies, techniques or nutrients, however I don't see anyone, anywhere funding research on this stuff. I note that you reference past experiments with m-states, I'd really like to see documentation on your (or whoever conducted the experiments) controls, environment, testing methodologies, the equipment used for elemental quantification and what the expected vs actuals were.

Unlike Homebrew my experience is only in Clinical Microbiology/Medical Technology so I don't consider myself to be as well versed on fermentation kinetics as he is. I do a lot of reading on fermentation and fermentation research by the wine industry and anything else I can find that is backed by sound research and documentation. While mead is different that wine in many ways, yeast and ideal yeast fermentation environment concepts cross-apply.

During my time in the clinical environment we were funded on several research projects so I am very familiar with different quantitative and qualitative research and testing methodologies. I guess what I'm looking for is some kind of breakdown of your findings in a scientific manner. That would help to educate me about your approach, your elements and what benefits you expect to find vs. the benefits/detriments of the actuals.

Cheers,

Oskaar

JoeM
09-09-2005, 01:55 AM
Agreed. Take me "to the source, to the people, to the books" as you say. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, all i'm saying is that if the literature is out there, show it to us. I'm very interested in the substances you're talking about, both from a homebrewing standpoint and a medical one.

Fortuna_Wolf
09-09-2005, 03:14 AM
I'm guessing Oskaar and Joe are going to be polite, so, I'll just have to do the debunking myself.

"m-state elements" and "orbitally rearranged monoatomic elements" are so deep down into pseudoscience that I think its passed into the occult.

Everything about them that I can find are referenced on pseudoscience and occult websites, most of them attempting to sell the products at outrageous prices (25-100 dollars for .1 pounds). Amusingly, at the prices they're asking, its still cheaper than the metallic elements (300 dollars a troy for gold, 3000 a troy for platinum?). If what they were actually selling you was what they claimed, I bet my bank's "life force" would really benefit from me purchasing crates of m-state elements, reprocessing, and selling the metallic precious metals. I cannot find any reference to m-state elements, ORME, or ORMUS on any "reputable" scientific site. Except for one forum thread where people were laughing at ORME webpages. Here's a quick synopsis of what I can gather...
David Baldwin was a farmer. He found some dirt on his farm, and with "millions of dollars of his own research" discovered that the dirt was composed of these precious metals in their "m-states." This was back in the 1960's, when pyramid power and crystals were apparently bigger things. These m-state elements are everywhere - the dirt on his farm, sea water, etc. Oh, and I can't forget, 5% of your brain is m-state rhodium. I mean... forgetting the fact that there is no rhodium in your brain... Anyhow, these m-state metals have miraculous properties such as, exhibiting antigravity (so... palecricket... did you actually add .25g, or perhaps, 1g that weighed .25g?), superconductivity (explained as the atomic ORMEs have an atomic temperature near 0K because they're single atoms, and so they superconduct. Though gold isn't a superconductor at any temperature.), magical healing (it energizes the body... or something), etc. M-state elements need to be kept free of electromagnetic fields and light, or else they'll revert to m-state gold (yay, transmutation?).
There's the obligatory list of magical cures:
AIDs
Alzheimer’s disease
Bipolar disorder
Cancer
Diabetes
Emphysema
Heart disease
Lupus
Multiple sclerosis
Muscular dystrophy
Osteoporosis

And then the literature just devolves into occult dribble. This is apparently because somehow these m-state elements are linked to the philosopher's stone (gold, transmutation, and the elixir of life?), and through that alchemy. Wham, next thing you know, the literature is babbling about psycho-physiology, interpretations of Sumerian history, Sacred Geometry, and Atlantis. I really couldn't read any further lest my wills to live and make mead (both of which are important) be sucked from my psyche and devoured by this delusional tripe.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_ciencia_oro11.htm
http://5352d6aa.cable.casema.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=454&Itemid=50
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_ciencia_oro13.htm
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/health/another.htm
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/Radiatio.htm
http://www.crucible.org/monatomic_elements.htm

Essentially, this has so many warning signs of a pseudoscience that it makes the Illuminati look legit. 1) One person doing all of the research themselves initially. 2) complete lack of peer review publications. 3) all the literature is on quack websites. ALL. 4) It invokes alchemy for god's sake. 5) A complete disregard for accepted psychics, chemistry, biology, and psychology. 6) A failure to state a paradigm, hypothesis, model, or theory of its own. 7) Making claims beyond what can even be construed to be the theory (Sacred Geometry? Curing AIDs?). 8) Magical healing claims. 9) Extrodinary claims, and all its good for is being sold over the internet to cure cancer? What about the superconductivity at room temperature? 10) The numbers don't add up (m-state gold 10 times cheaper than metallic gold?). 11) Sekrat Propritary Production Method!!!
Don't even claim that its just "misunderstood" or "needs to be studied more" since the effects are "hard to observe." Its had well over 40 years to be studied, and all of the quack websites make it clear that its very easy to observe such things. Unless of course, you mean, actual effects. Well, hard to observe effects will often always stay hard to observe, since they are what we call "sampling errors." Please go read up on say, N-rays, and polywater.

Oh, and palecricket, m-state elements loose their effectiveness when kept in a liquid solution. I doubt you could classify the mead as "philosopher's mead." Just perhaps, m-state liquid mead? I think the yeast are using up all your precious m-state energies.

BTW, m-palladium is highly toxic when taken with alcohol, and I recall you saying that you added some in your first post... might not want to drink it.

WRATHWILDE
09-09-2005, 04:45 AM
Fortuna_Wolf,

Thanks for the links, these are some of the funniest articles I've read in a long time. And to think our own :o David Baldwin :o discovered m-state elements... I'm sure you meant David Hudson ;D.

Think I'll take m-11 to completely heal my body, then m-copper to live forever (my investments should be substantial enough by the time I'm ready to snuff it that I'll buy a rhodium mine, eat it, and go out in a flash of light like he claims the ancient pharaoh's did.)

Wrathwilde

memento
09-09-2005, 08:48 AM
Was a control batch done with fermaid? That would be a good reference.

HomeBrew
09-09-2005, 08:59 AM
Palecricket1,

My opinion is based on a degree in Microbiology and another in Chemistry plus 13 years working as a research scientist, not on something that I read on the internet. The work I do requires me to keep up on scientific progress. I have never come across any peer reviewed research supporting m-state elemental theories. In addition, none of the dozens of workshops, seminars and conventions that I have attended here and overseas included a single person willing to publically defend the theories of m-state elements. (Although, I did run across some magic fungus called "Philosopher's Stones" during my last trip to Amsterdam ;D)

I would not have been able to complete a lot of the projects that I work on without being able to think outside the box, so I am in no way opposed to radical thinking. However, that thinking has to be tempered with a bit of realism and tangible evidence.

All that aside, I am sorry to hear about your father and I wish him a complete recovery.

Peace.

Jmattioli
09-09-2005, 09:02 AM
Well,
To add my two cents. I think what palecricket1 is doing is commendable. He is experimenting. Why should we take a position on such matters when our perceptions are lacking any real context. Just because the wine industry hasn't moved into this area proves nothing. Where is the evidence against it if it has not been tried with mead. It may prove to be nothing or it may prove to be something but we will get no where by discouraging experimentaion by 'debunking' no matter what our personal beliefs. So I say, Go for it Palecricket1 and keep us posted of your experiences. Should we be found the ignorant ones, it would be no surprise to me. And should it not work out, thats okay also because that is what this forum is all about. Experimenting and learning.

Regards Joe

WRATHWILDE
09-09-2005, 11:14 AM
I think what palecricket1 is doing is commendable.


I do too, but man those links were funny.

Wrathwilde

Fortuna_Wolf
09-09-2005, 11:51 AM
Joe, science is only meaningful when done in the context of an established paradigm. Basically it works like this: a protoscience receives a universal paradigm and becomes an established science. The paradigm guides further research directing it and interpreting it. Work proceeds within this context filling in the details and data. The data gathered would otherwise be without direction or meaning. The paradigm illustrates areas of interest as well. That is not to say the paradigm is correct, but it is our best theory and model to explain the body of data. It will be modified, and it may be superceeded by another paradigm. No scientific theory or model will precisely describes reality, but it is still necessary to work within it. I stress, work outside of it lacks meaning. If there are anomalous results you won't even know so because you have no idea what the data is data of.

M-state elements as palecricket believes them do not exist. He is working within the realm of pseudoscience. The experiment he's performing, even if he has set up proper controls, and enough repetitions of data to be statistically meaningful, is only evidence of corrolation, and is meaningless. Thus, it is at worst, pseudoscience or parascience, and at best protoscience. I hesitate to call it a protoscience science though. Besides, as we know m-state elements don't exist, we must wonder just what it was he put into the mead. He will need to properly chemically analyze them in order to gather data the rest of us can draw on and repeat.

When my mother was diagnosed with cervical cancer she underwent surgery, chemotherapy, radiation. She also tried herbal therapy, feng-sui, and watched way too much John Edwards and Dr. Phil for my comfort. But if it made her feel better... In anycase, with your father, follow the doctor's recommended treatment, and if it makes you feel better give him some of those m-state elements, but don't replace medicine with snakeoil.

Dmntd
09-09-2005, 01:52 PM
What was the opine of the scientific community when antimatter was first theorized in the late 19th century? and how many years passed between the first theory and the observation of the positron?

I understand, these are not the same thing or in any way related. The point I'm making is, just because the scientific community isn't looking or researching something, does not mean it can not or does not exist.

As cold fusion events demonstrate, modern science is ruled by conformity, not the search for scientific truth. If you challenge the beliefs of your peers in the scientific community, you are not going to get published. This is how today's system of conventional "scientific Research") suppresses the emergence of new ideas and new theories that could produce true breakthroughs in our understanding of health, medicine, science and the nature of the universe.

The science that's published in medical and scientific journals today may indeed be solid science, but it in no way represents all of the good scientific research being conducted today. There are independent thinkers, scientists, pioneers and outright scientific rebels who are doing extraordinary research, yet never get published. Even worse, their research gets systematically ridiculed by the old school guardians of the scientific community. One of the most obvious examples of this is the team of Fleischmann and Pons, who are, of course, the fathers of "cold fusion," which is now better known as "low-energy nuclear reactions."

Cold fusion is still laughed at by people in the mainstream who are too ignorant to realize that cold fusion experiments are being replicated and conducted in laboratories all around the world this very minute, most notably in Japan. Low-energy nuclear reactions are quite real. These reactions, which use a palladium catalyst and heavy water, are being used to generate excess heat in laboratories as you read this. In other words, cold fusion is quite real.

If you think back to 1989 and look at the way this issue was suppressed, you realize that the credibility of cold fusion was destroyed by scientists who had career and ego investments in the theories of hot fusion. These were scientists who had published papers or invested their careers in multi-billion dollar experiments trying to generate free electricity from hot fusion. Thus, the idea that two chemists could create cold fusion with a tabletop experiment was viewed as outrageous. Rather than examining the evidence with an open mind and try to understand and replicate what was going on, they sought to destroy it.

This ego-fueled suppression of cold fusion was quite successful, to the point where, today, if you mention cold fusion to anyone who is steeped in conventional medicine or science, they will laugh at you and say, "Cold fusion is a joke, just like medical quackery." But of course, the big joke is on them, because cold fusion does indeed exist, and it has been proven time and time again.

You can see pictures of a modern cold fusion experiment running at the physics department of Purdue university at - http://www.physics.purdue.edu/neutron/LENR.html -

The reason why cold fusion was difficult to prove back in 1989 is because, during those times, the experimenters were only able to replicate these low-energy nuclear reactions in 30 percent of the experiments. So if a laboratory ran ten experiments, they would obtain low-energy nuclear reactions in three of those ten cases. According to the hot fusion defenders, this was proof enough that cold fusion was a fraud.

Of course, it is scientific insanity to suggest that just because something happens three out of ten times, it doesn't exist at all. Three out of ten times is pretty good for an emerging science that is experimental in nature and very poorly understood. With refinement and additional experiments, that number could doubtlessly have been increased to six or seven out of ten, and perhaps eventually ten out of ten.

Nevertheless, cold fusion was discredited. Today, more than 15 years later, it remains discredited and virtually unknown in the Western world. Meanwhile, Fleischmann and Pons are busy working for private corporations who will, without a doubt, one day release industrial or consumer versions of low-energy nuclear reactors that will provide free energy to households, businesses and even entire communities at very little cost.

There are now over 400 scientific papers on cold fusion, most of which are now available at - http://www.lenr-canr.org/ - the leading cold fusion community website. This site provides excellent reading on the history of cold fusion as well as the many challenges still being faced in this search for genuine scientific understanding.

The suppression of cold fusion is just one example of how our modern scientific community operates more like a group of high priests than seekers of genuine scientific understanding. As a result, the science we live with today only represents a small fraction of the true scientific knowledge available to mankind. Much of the good science conducted over the last hundred years has been suppressed (cold fusion is just the beginning of this story). It has largely been concealed to protect either the financial interests of certain corporations or the ego interests of certain individuals or scientific groups.

In the world of so-called "evidence-based medicine," the defenders of conventional medicine, which include the American Medical Association, medical schools and conventionally trained doctors, also want to protect their territory. They want to remain in control over all medical decisions and health-related interactions with patients. Yet, they have very few qualifications for actually doing so. For example, medical schools don't even teach basic nutrition, and doctors graduate from medical schools and residence training with practically no understanding of nutrition (see related ebook on nutrition) whatsoever. They have no real qualifications to talk to patients about disease prevention through healing foods, or to talk about how to live a healthy life through intelligent food choice. These are the basics of health, yet they are almost entirely ignored by modern medicine.

Many of the most promising healing modalities are not just ignored by conventional medicine; they are in fact ridiculed. Homeopathy comes to mind. Homeopathy is discredited simply because the defenders of conventional medicine have no understanding of the mechanism by which homeopathic remedies work. It's similar to saying that there is no such thing as infectious disease because we can't see any germs (which was once the official position of science-based medicine). Of course, once the microscope was invented, germs could be seen, and the acceptance of the scientific validity of infectious disease soon followed.

Some day, there will be instruments that can measure the vibrational nature, or what is called the "memory," of water. When those instruments are available, homeopathy will seem to be common sense, but today it is considered fringe science or quackery by the defenders of conventional medicine because they don't see how it could possibly work. They leave no room in their belief systems for the possibility that something could operate outside their current understanding. As long as there is no microscope for seeing homeopathic energy, the stodgy, egoistic defenders of evidence-based medicine will call it quackery. Of course, this is the same thinking that once called the germ theory quackery.

Anything that's based on evidence is also subject to the distortions and belief systems of old-guard scientists and doctors who currently control the intellectual topography in which this evidence is framed.

The violet wand, a Nikola Tesla invention: a handheld Tesla coil connected to a gas discharge tube intended to be applied to the skin. His invention was an electrotherapy device.

To this day, Tesla's invention is called quak medicine. While modern equipment which does exactly the same thing is used for treating nerve pain.

Anthony

Oskaar
09-09-2005, 02:07 PM
snip. . .I guess what I'm looking for is some kind of breakdown of your findings in a scientific manner. That would help to educate me about your approach, your elements and what benefits you expect to find vs. the benefits/detriments of the actuals . . . snip


Like I said below, I'm open to new methodologies, techniques and ideas; and I do like to see some evidence that I'm not tossing my money down the chipper/shredder. It wasn't so long ago that no one would have bought a $20 bottle of wine fermented in a stainless steel vat with several palates of hardwood tossed in and having oxygen blown through it during primary fermentaion. But now, a considerable number of winemakers are moving that way in order to defray the costs of cooperage each year . . . try a bottle of Columbia Crest Two Vines Shiraz (we get them here in So Cal for $4.99 a bottle) it's not going to shut down the high end wine market, but it's awfully tough to beat it in the price range (unless you can get your hands on some Primitivo from Italy!)

To me if it improves your meadmaking, I say go for it and let the evidence speak for itself. However, I also say that when one researches from a subjective viewpoint, the results will be subjective. I don't mind "Guinea Pigging" a batch if you'll post up your exact recipes. The proof is in the pudding.

cheers,

Oskaar

lostnbronx
09-09-2005, 02:44 PM
The most disturbing aspect of this thread to me, beside the fact that it has now wandered very far afield from one Board member's description of a mead-in-the-works, is that there seems to be a tendency to hoot Palecricket down simply because his philosophy runs counter to some other people's. I don't recall this sort of vehemence in the discussion we had on moon phase effects on fermentation, and that doesn't have any scientific basis at all. It didn't matter then, because we were talking about personal philosophies influencing personal descissions about someone's personal mead. The same is true here. Palecricket isn't saying we should all be doing this, or, in fact that anyone should -- he's simply taking a look at it. And some folks seem to find that offensive. Personally, I find that additude offensive. This thread has now been completely co-opted into a debate on scientific validity. I'm sorry, but that's rude.

Again, I know absolutely nothing about m-state matter, and to be honest, I don't care to: I have enough on my plate trying to understand myself, let alone the state of the universe. In other words, I'm no scientist. I'm not ashamed of this, because most people in the world aren't scientists either. Most people on this board are not. I might even hazard to write that only Homebrew has the qualifications to define himself that way if he wanted to. Palecricket is reporting on a mead experiment that he's conducting. He has a perfect right to satisfy his curiousity. As this is an open Forum, he has a perfect right to post about it here. Likewise we have a right to chime in on it and disagree. We do not have a right, however, to tell him he's somehow wrong or foolish to believe what he believes. The moon-phase method of fermentation has some historical coroboration, but in modern times, it basically amounts to a philosophy of nature and/or a religious belief for some. And that's okay. It's wonderful, in fact. No one is wrong here, except the person or persons who want to create a hostile environment for those they disagree with.

This is a most civilized Forum, wherein people's differences and opinions are openly embraced and even celebrated. Stating you disagree with someone is enough. No one is -- or should be -- trying to win a debate.

-David

palecricket1
09-09-2005, 02:57 PM
I'm guessing Oskaar and Joe are going to be polite, so, I'll just have to do the debunking myself.

"m-state elements" and "orbitally rearranged monoatomic elements" are so deep down into pseudoscience that I think its passed into the occult.


This is one thing that I regretfully must agree. It has become virtually absorbed by the occultists, mostly becuase of their great interest in the topic. That doesn't change whether it's true or not, though, simply that it appeals largely to that audience.
The occult is, essentially, science watered down with mysticism. Alchemy, likewise, is the junction of chemistry and mysticism. This kind of stuff happens all the time. In sujects such as this where the theological implications are so great, there is an even greater interest in it by the occultists. But simply because something involves the occult is no reason to regard it as false or pseudoscientific; take the time to consider it. Not that you haven't BTW; you've made it clear that you've already done that. If you still feel the way you do, that's ok. My work often dapples in these "gray" areas, and I'm use to people not accepting the things I study as truth. The high prices of the pure substance, BTW, are simply because they take the metallic element and convert into the m-state element, so it has to be more expensive than the metal. What I use is the naturally occuring form, which is not as potent and is often an m-state bonded to some functional group like a carbonate or hydroxyl group. Nevertheless it's a heck of a lot less expensive. Now in regards to stability, and specifically over time, m-states transmute slowly, even when exposed to light. Magnetic fields agitate them but unless they are strong and within close proximity will not cause any problems. And for the record they're not monoatomic; there are different degrees of cooper pairing that can yield groups of m-states, and even compounds involving them (such as the m-hydroxides I use). In my own experience I have found that these are more stable and less affected by electromagnetism.
yes, m-platinum is toxic, but from the anecdotes displaying its toxicity, the dose of both platinum and alcohol must be significant, and there is very little, if any, platinum in my sample. Nevertheless I will take necessary precausions before consumption and magnetically force them out of solution just be safe.
Fortuna, you have provided quite a bit of evidence against it, but mostly it seems that you target discrediting it. Could you provide any evidence that directly contradicts the theory or makes it impossible to occur, or something of that nature? I'm openminded and I will change my views if you are correct.

palecricket1
09-09-2005, 03:09 PM
Palecricket1,

My opinion is based on a degree in Microbiology and another in Chemistry plus 13 years working as a research scientist, not on something that I read on the internet. The work I do requires me to keep up on scientific progress.

All that aside, I am sorry to hear about your father and I wish him a complete recovery.

Peace.


Much appreciated homebrew. I'm glad to hear that you base your opinion on experience, and I say the same to you: while it is noteworthy that there are not peer-reviewed theories on the matter, is there anything that makes it particularly impossible or physically unlikely?
BTW this is just a shot in the dark here but I think one major reason why there are no peer-reviewed theories out there may be because
1) many of the people studying this are, as fortuna pointed out, occultists. Based on the occultists I know, they tend to not really care about the scientific method or what anyone else thinks of their findings so they aren't too likely to share their findings outside of their own circles. I believe Newton was like that with his gravitational theory as well, go figure ;) then again he was an occultist too, and look at what he discovered.
2) Alot of these more radical, albiet eccentric concepts take quite some time to be fully accepted and really start to gain public interest (aside from industrial interest, which in this case is already making a killing off it). Take for example Kellog, who supported daily enemas with YOGURT! :-X :-X Hard to believe this man came up with cornflakes. Odd, very. Nevertheless the concept of replacing intestinal bacteria is now being used, e.g. acidophillus pills.

It's interesting to see how opinions differ so greatly within scientists! A while back when I first got involved with this I had a discussion with a friend of mine who's a physics teacher and he was rather intriuged when I told him about the theory.

Jmattioli
09-09-2005, 03:23 PM
Wow, :o
You all are too heavy for this mind. I know very little about science and my methods are a bit pragmatic. However, Science seems to me to work out of a pattern of content rather than context. Many discoveries have come out of intuition and then later had verification with science. Mead is the topic and regardless of ones intellectual or scientific understanding, what is the need to take a position on his experiment? Christopher Columbus didn't fit into the paradigm of the thinking of his time. It seems to me that my perception one way or the other is not important. What is important is that we continue to encourage experimentation no matter what our personal beliefs and that each person feel free to follow their own hunches without antagonizm from the peanut gallery. ;) ;D

Joe

P.S. Let's not turn this into a religion. Mead making is meant to be FUN and enjoyed. After a few drinks who really cares who is right and who is wrong. Let the experiments begin and let us make philisophical mead. :-* :-X

Dmntd
09-09-2005, 03:36 PM
Palecricket,

Are you running three batches for this test;

1. With your energizer.

2. With a proven energizer.

3. No energizer at all.

with must made as one batch, and pitched from the same yeast starter?

Anthony

memento
09-09-2005, 03:54 PM
This topic is moving very fast! I study on the fringes myself, and having received by BS in Nuclear Engineering in 1992, I'm VERY familiar with the whole cold fusion thing and other things that seemed mysterious at one time (like radiation, etc). :) I've never heard of m-states, so I won't comment on it specifically.

A couple of general points that I think are relevant.

1. If you are not taught what the boundaries are supposed to be, then you are not bound by them!
2. It is very difficult and more often than not impossible to prove that something doesn't exist or didn't happen. The burden of proof lies with those trying to prove it, not disprove it. Develop a theory, then prove it.
3. Never be bound by "traditional" science. That's the only way to progress. There are MANY examples of this, some mentioned here.

And to echo Dmntd - I asked earlier in the thread if a batch was being run with fermaid. One is being run with no energizer.

Oskaar
09-09-2005, 03:57 PM
Hi All,

This is a pretty lively thread with some very differing viewpoints so I'll ask that everyone remain mindful of being civil and respectful to each other's point of views and opinions. Let's keep it constructive please.

Thanks,

Oskaar

JoeM
09-09-2005, 05:00 PM
Well, I suppose there is a lot I can say here, but I don’t think I’m going to say most of it in the interest of everyones sanity. The few things I would like to point out are:

1) Dmntd “For example, medical schools don't even teach basic nutrition”
I’m graduating medical school in 8 months and I can tell you that we are definitely taught about nutrition and how to properly council patients (at least at my medical school).

2) I’ve seen a lot of treatments and a lot of science that many people would say is crazy. That fact is thought that there is always at least some research and literature to back it up (unless of course you are one of the pioneering researchers in the field, which I’m assuming you aren’t claiming to be). All I’m saying is show me at least some credible, class 1 literature. I dont want you to do this to "prove" yourself, i want to see it so i can learn about it. You say that there are a lot of occultists following these theories and that doesn’t necessarily make them false. I agree, but if what you’re claiming is true there has to be some valid data somewhere.

3) My girlfriend has a PhD in Neurochemistry, and as far as either of us know (not that we know everything) the brain is not composed of 5% Rhodium, and the only websites I can find that substantiate this also claim that:

“Extraterrestrials from the planet Nibiru came to Earth with the primary purpose of mining gold and precious elements, and they created mankind in order to have someone to work the mines” and that the m-state elements give you the power to “have perfect telepathy, Be able to levitate, Project one’s thoughts into someone else’s mind, Heal by laying on of hands, and, Cleanse or resurrect the dead within two or three days after they have died.”

4) Lastly I just want to say that i agree with whoever said that the burden of proof in this instance is upon you. I'm not saying that you absolutly must prove yourself, i'm just reacting to your comment that the disbelivers should prove that you are false. To claim something and then say to disbelievers “prove to me that it doesn’t exist” is a scientific fallacy.

palecricket1
09-09-2005, 05:07 PM
Palecricket,

Are you running three batches for this test;

1. With your energizer.
2. With a proven energizer.
3. No energizer at all.

with must made as one batch, and pitched from the same yeast starter?

Anthony


yes, all except for the part about a proven energizer. When i started the experiment i was looking more for the presence of an effect, not so much to compare it to a yeast energizer. To be perfectly honest I'm not sure if this will help or hurt the yeast, claims have been made that som microorganisms are hurt by m-states. My thoughts in starting this was whether or not the yeast would benefit from this, which would indicate whether or not it may have been m-states in the hardwater that was improving their growth. It was only later that I realized its implications as an energizer. I don't carry any energizers or nutrients because I'm not the biggest fan or chemicals. I'll be sure in a future trial, however, to include a known energizer.

palecricket1
09-09-2005, 05:16 PM
3) My girlfriend has a PhD in Neurochemistry, and as far as either of us know (not that we know everything) the brain is not composed of 5% Rhodium, and the only websites I can find that substantiate this also claim that:

“Extraterrestrials from the planet Nibiru came to Earth with the primary purpose of mining gold and precious elements, and they created mankind in order to have someone to work the mines” and that the m-state elements give you the power to “have perfect telepathy, Be able to levitate, Project one’s thoughts into someone else’s mind, Heal by laying on of hands, and, Cleanse or resurrect the dead within two or three days after they have died.”

4) Lastly I just want to say that i agree with whoever said that the burden of proof in this instance is upon you. I'm not saying that you absolutly must prove yourself, i'm just reacting to your comment that the disbelivers should prove that you are false. To claim something and then say to disbelievers “prove to me that it doesn’t exist” is a scientific fallacy.


I will double check the source of the claim that rhodium makes up 5% of the brain by mass, but I'm next to positive my source was quoting one of Hudson's experiments, so anything he had to about aliens or whatnot wouldn't really be relative.
I also agree that the burden of proof is upon me. This is why I'm not really trying to prove that m-states are real. I also hold that any theory is plausible until proven false, especially when there is evidence to back it. I can offer my own anecdotal evidence if you like, but that's only as good as my lone observations were and without extensive study I suppose there really is no way of ruling out the many sources of error involved in such evidence. I guess that's one more reason to carry out this experiment -- to have some evidence that was obtained via the scientific method. BTW the cyser is displaying something abnormal: a large amount of thick foam with very fine bubbles. This doesn't usually happen with this yeast and is not present in the control.

Oskaar
09-09-2005, 09:04 PM
Last post Moderated as more argumentative than constructive and thread capped by Oskaar 09/08/2005

Let's move on please