It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Philosopher's stone

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:25 PM

Originally posted by thestatue
okay i used periods that time no one cares either way.....

i dont see why people are making such a big fuss over this. i know what language i speak, and ive gotten quite good at understanding "bad" english. but to help-if you fail to grasp where a period should be, think of it as a "breath" in your speech. if you need to take a new breath chances are thats where a period belongs.

you say you were around when alchemy was common practice, what inspired the creation of the "gem of fools"?

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 02:12 PM

Originally posted by thestatue
manna is our Food as in Angels we offered earlier in the desert to people.....the white stone is a new life its a reference to the new creation in Christ nothing to do with the philosopher stone.......king james made it possible for the bible to be void of alchemy wizards magic and dragons/dinosaurs

I agree that the manna is meant to be a literal, but you are saying the stone is instead figuritive? Remember the passage isnt reffering to everyone but to those who overcome during the tribulation.

And also there are mention of dragons in the bible, not figuritive but literal. At least there is in the Apocraph...

See here for reference

Look at the Book of Bel and the Dragon.

And wasnt the apocrypha in the original king james version, I am sure I have seen old copies on ebay that contain it... so how did he make it possible the bible not contain references to dragons?

posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:10 AM
The dragons of the Bible are connected to david icke's books and theories which also connect to what shamans see while on ayahuasca/psylicobe. The Dragon's still exist, but they're not the kind your imagination would lead you to believe.

posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:19 AM
Aren't the dragons of the Bible more in the metaphorical sense, such as if the serpent in the garden of Eden was a deciever, then the Draco, of the same family, would be used as a metaphor for a great deciever...?

posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 10:19 AM
Sorry if that was off-topic!

posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 01:57 PM
see king james removed the apocrtha text but you can find bibles with them appendixed or whatever no Dragon do exist and there just to old of a species and were hunted down just like everything else great........sea cows for example nothing too amazing just big manatees are completely gone dragons still remain because family's kept them alive...recently they've been moved to the preserves where thought to be exstinct animals exist still in small numbers for control....and dragons are on the subject of alchemy they used it to breathe fire

posted on Aug, 11 2007 @ 05:13 PM
I'm sorry...I have to step in again...

Dragons didn't use alchemy to breathe fire; however, dragons were important in alchemy.

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:36 PM
yes dude the process in which they create fire from their mouths is pure alchemy

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 12:40 PM
statue, send me a u2u and I'll direct you to the stone

posted on Oct, 4 2007 @ 02:10 PM
When everyman can make as much gold as he wants it will become totally worthless. It is only valuable because of its rarity.

posted on Oct, 5 2007 @ 08:39 PM
There's basically three theories advanced so far:

1) The original poster, who doesn't know anything else but what he's heard in "full metal alchemist" and other anime. There's no "gem of fools" anywhere in historical alchemy, East or West. It came from the mind of a comic writer in the last decade. Fulcanelli was no alchemist, just wrote the "Da Vinci Code" of his generation, and so everyone quotes him as if he were an authority. Now he's just a name in a comic book ("It's really about comics.")

2) Other folks, who don't know what alchemy is; but they are sure there's nothing to it. ("It's really about nothing")

3) People quoting A.E. Hitchcock and Mary Atwood, that alchemical writings "must have been code," since there is no other obvious way to understand them. This theory has the convenient feature that a code can mean anything you say it means, as long as you know more than your readers do. ("it's really spiritual")

If anyone here had actually read alchemical tracts, you'd know that alchemists claimed that some of their members had succeeded in the great work. And alchemists even agreed amongst themselves as to who had succeeded, and who had not. People like Denis Zachaire were universally seen as alchemical failures, but good and moral seekers of truth. Others, like Thomas Seton, were universally acclaimed successes. So what was the difference? If it is all "spiritual," then all of them would have believed they "knew the secret."

Take a look at this quote from Basil Valentinus, in "Last Will and Testament" (with emphasis added by me)

"O Lord God Almighty, merciful gracious Father of Thine Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ, who art only the Lord of Sabaoth, the principle of all things that are made by thy word, and definite end of all creatures above and below; I, poor miserable man and earthworm, return thanks with my babbling tounge from the innermost center of my heart, who hast been pleased to enlighten me with the great light of Thy heavenly and earthly wisdom, and the greatest mysteries of the created secrecies and treasures of this world, together with Thy divine saving word, by which I learn to know Thine Almighty power and wonders. To Thee belongs eternal praise, honour and glory, from eternity unto eternity, that Thou hast bestowed on me health and livelihood, strength and ability to be helpful to my fellow Christians in their necessities and inflicted infirmities with these mystical healing medicines, together with such spiritual comforts, to raise the drooping spirits. Lord, to Thee alone belongs power, might and glory, to Thee is the praise, honour and gratefulness, for all the mercies and graces Thou has bestowed upon me, and hast preserved me therein to this my great age, and lowest comforts, be not angry with me that I deliver up to Thee, mine eternal Creator, the keys of my stewardship; wrapped up in this parchment, according to the duty my calling and conscience calls for; with these Thou did suffer me to keep house the most of my time till now, Thou hast called and foreseen me to be thy servant and steward, and hast graciously afforded, that I should enjoy the noble sweet fruits which were gathered in thy almonary to my last instant, and which now O Lord lieth in Thy power. I beseech Thee for the dear merits of Jesus Christ, come now, when Thou pleasest, enclose my heart, receive my soul into Thy heavenly throne of grace; let her be recommended unto Thee graciously O Thou faithful God, who hast redeemed her on the Holy Cross with the most precious tincture of the true blood of Thy holy body: then is my life well ended on this earth, grant to the body a quiet rest, till at the last day, body and soul join again, and are of a heavenly composition: for now my only desire is to be dissolved, and to be with my Lord Christ: the which Thou, Almighty, Holy, and Heavenly Trinity grant to me, and all good Christian believers. Amen."

This Christian is basically swearing upon his own salvation that he obtained the secret. And the clauses I emboldened are only a few examples of his claim to have succeeded at physical transmutation.

Do you think he was lying? As a Christian, he believed his salvation was at stake. Was he a deceiver? His contemporaries believed he had succeeded. . . .

If you believe it was all either fakery or "spiritual," how do you explain the coins struck from alchemical gold, on display in some of the greatest museums in Europe?

"Alchemical Coins and Medals" a book by Vladimir Karpenko.

This article reviews chemical analyses of the gold in these "alchemical coins," which contains traces of mercury and sulfur, substances used by puffers and charcoal burners. (The authors take it as proof that the coins weren't genuine(!)).

So, how do you square these ideas, with the modernist claim that alchemy was "really spiritual." A lot of people back then didn't think so. The leading lights of Alchemical lore, from China to Scotland, didn't think so. B

Yet magically, some people on an internet bulletin board are instantly sure they've plumbed the depths of alchemy, and know more than the historical alchemists did---and all without reading a single original manuscript!

No wonder so many never succeeded at the alchemical quest.

posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 05:10 PM
hm i was actually searching for a thread like this
are you impling that the fols stone may be the world? i just have to understand that.
Also i think that the stone is definetly more spiritually than physical, partly mentally though
the likley hood of it being a state of mind is good but could soemone tell me a good website for reseaching amchemy and the symbols please and some good sources of info on the stone?
there is a magic theory that there are many portals, could the stone be a portal or not? anotehr magic theory is the curse which, like the fools stone, stops magic here, it seems we always find a counter to everything
this is very interesting though
please carry on
unfortunately i hope no one finds the stone, we shouldnt use it, if everyone could use alchemy think of what would happen to the world, it would not all be good

posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by daniel191159

arent there other animals and things signifcant like the usn and the lion and the snake or am i just being stupid
the moon? some say the star sirius aswell

posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 12:44 PM
For all you doubters of the philosopher's stone: Here's scientific proof:

Please rethink your replies now in the light of this link. thank you

posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 01:19 PM

Originally posted by dominicus
For all you doubters of the philosopher's stone: Here's scientific proof:

Please rethink your replies now in the light of this link. thank you

Ahem, this article says nothing about the philosophers stone and in fact goes against traditional theory on alchemy (trasmutation of elements threw chemistry.)

From your article:

The number of protons cannot be altered by any chemical means

Bolding mine
There you go, from your own source, its not possible to change an element thru chemistry.

Because lead is stable, forcing it to release three protons requires a vast input of energy, such that the cost of transmuting it greatly surpasses the value of the resulting gold.


There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold


Today particle accelerators routinely transmute elements.

So lead turned into gold when it was used as a liner for a Nuclear reactor, meeting the vast requirements of energy. Can you honestly prove that such energy requirements were met at the time when alchemy was thought to be real? I mean, we havent found acient Nuclear reactors or particle accelerators yet have we?

Besides, if your article did prove alchemy was possible, wouldnt that disprove the OP's original point? Wasnt the OP saying that the stone of fools (or whatever) was active and stopped the process of Alchemy?

Maybe you should rethink your reply aswell.

posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 08:36 PM

the philosophers stone...and object desired by mans quest for power and knowledge...created in the minds of maniacs...its all around you...the earth originaly just a ball of stated as the true stone...the earth is the creation of everything on this planet it is the true philosophers stone...alchemy was practised by the ancient egyptian it was science nothing more...even if you somehow managed to obtain this old answer to everything stone what would you do with would you be able to use it or even understand it....this is your downfall you relly heavily on scientific answers when your searching for a fictional and unscientific object...

i have just one question for you, why do you need alchemy...

and the answer is you dont

i am and indigo child and im here to help you because you cannot comprehend what your dealing with...

peace out

posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Richard.M.J.Palmer

the philosophers stone...and object desired by mans quest for power and knowledge...created in the minds of maniacs...its all around you...the earth originaly just a ball of blue...

i am and indigo child and im here to help you because you cannot comprehend what your dealing with...

peace out

More pseudo-spiritual shtick with a huge chunk of indigo child ego. How do you know what I can and cannot deal with? The arrogance of the last line is astounding.

posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 09:03 PM
actually I'm a huge alchemy buff, am in constant communication with Living Alchemists, and make some of my own formulas and I will tell you this:

When making the stone or the red lion, the process with which the transmutaions occur is on the scale of low level nuclear reactions. These formulas show up on a gieger counter. The link that I posted completely supports the fact (fact for me at least) that alchemsists today and hundreds of years ago, were ahead of where modern commercial chemstry is now.

posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 09:25 PM
reply to post by dominicus

So how come you don't bring your discoveries to the front light and help shape humanities future?

How do you contain the energy released from your transmutations if it is on the level of a low nuclear reaction? So what reading do you normally get when transmuting lead into gold on the gieger counter? (I always thought you just had to produce radiation to get a measurable effect on a gieger counter, therefore a reading on the meter doesn't mean a small fission or fusion reaction.) Besides, that article doesn't say you'll produce a nuclear reaction when transmuting, it alludes to the fact that you need a nuclear reaction or a particle accelerator.

Im not really sure how your article supports your statements as it says:

Changing the element requires changing the atomic (proton) number. The number of protons cannot be altered by any chemical means

Right there it says you cant do it through chemistry.

posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 11:49 PM
Well that's the thing, they're saying you can't (but that's according to what they currently know). The same article articulates:

The number of protons cannot be altered by any chemical means. However, physics may be used to add or remove protons and thereby change one element into another.


Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it has been achieved! There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead (possibly en route from bismuth, in 1980) into gold.

So adding to your last post, the same linc adds a "However" into the picture which you forgot to mention.

My work, and those of fellow alchemists, has led to the production of pretty high gieger counter readings, radio isotopes of various sorts and so on. Allot of the work requires lengthy several month long processes on low heats using special pelican distillars and hermetically sealed devices.

It is during these times that allot of reactions take place visible to the eye. Not only that, this work makes use of something called "aether" which is not upheld in the scientific commercial community. "Aether" is by far one of the most imporant in this work and in doing this work you see for yourself that aether exists.

I don't publish any official work to any commercial community because of stigma, falling on deaf ears when I have no official crudentials (self taught), and it's a waste of time since nothing could can come of it. There's a reason why alchemy has always been in the hands of "a few".

If you are interested, give me a PM and we'll talk further

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in