"Occult Chemistry"

[Soapy Sam]

http://www.tphta.ws/TPH_OC01.HTM
The link above is to an online version of Leadbetter and Besant's 1895 clairvoyant study of subatomic structure.

I imagine most regulars here will know the names well enough. (I sometimes feel I knew Annie personally- an interesting lady unquestionably, but a little before even my time.)

Before I try to plough through it, has anyone here read it and if so are they aware of any comparisons of the work with mainstream chemistry or physics (especially in relation to quarks and string theory) which would indicate that the OC data has any significant similarity to current models?

In short is there anything of significance here? If so, what?

[MRC_Hans]

No, there is not. The idea of an Anu, a basic atom is intriguing, and part of the description might be seen to fit the photon which is logically sound, since it we want to speak of some basic unit, the photon would be that. However, here is where it stops; the association between the atom and the anu, as claimed in the text, bears no resemblance between that of atoms and photons.

The build-up of atoms is totally off. The 4 etherical levels above the gasous state are pure imagination, unlees you are very charitable and equate one of them to the plasma state.

So, total fantasy with few, random parallels to reality. In fact one is left wondering exactly what they were on while dreaming that up :rolleyes:.

Hans

[Soapy Sam]

Hans- Had you seen this before? Or are your conclusions based on reading it now?

I see no sense in it myself and the lack of a description of HOW the study was made is telling. (They "examined" a single hydrogen atom? Clamped to a bench?)

Trouble about something like this , presented to the general reader,is it makes as much sense (ie not much) as a mainstream description of quarks or QED would.

How does one distinguish between them , if one is no expert on either subject?

For instance- Briane Greene's book "The Elegant Universe" wholly failed to convince me of the reality of strings, because I didn't understand what the hell he is talking about. Now I know- and you know- that Greene's book does not exist in a vacuum; there are many smart people working in that field. The failure is mine, not his. But suppose we didn't know that?
M-Theory may be correct- but I have no way to tell, because I can neither confirm nor deny either his evidence. or his conclusions. I don't even understand them.
So I cling to my sceptical doubts.

Now-
[ Assume I'm an idiot. No huge imaginative leap required.]
Given: I know absolutely no physics or chemistry at all.
The OC stuff presents a similar challenge to this slightly less informed "me".
It seems complex. I don't understand what's going on. It doesn't look like the ravings of a deranged mind. There is a lot of detail. These Anu seem rather like the "quarks" I hear geeks talk about. I can stay sceptical or I can reject it outright, which is no way of arguing, really, or I may conclude that there is something to it.

Now can you explain why you think I should reject this stuff?
[ / End assumption]

I see this as a fine example of a more general question in scepticism. How to tell between mainstream scientific claims which are speculative and may be wrong and nonscientific speculation which looks scientific on the surface.

[MRC_Hans]

Im basing my evaluation on reading it now. I have never heard of it before (which is in itself a sign that it is worthless: If it had had the slightest of merit it would be all over woo sites).

A basic counterargument:

They say a hydrogen atom is enclosed in an egg-shaped shell and consists of six small objects arranged in two triangles. Each of the small objects consists of three even smaller objects, the so-called Anu, basic atoms.

We can stop here as we now know that a hydrogen atom consists of a proton and a much lighter electron. No shell (although we sometomes talk of electrons occupying a shell), no triangles, no Anu.

And it pretty much goes on like that. Total gibberish.

Hans

[Mojo]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
They say a hydrogen atom is enclosed in an egg-shaped shell and consists of six small objects arranged in two triangles. Each of the small objects consists of three even smaller objects, the so-called Anu, basic atoms.

We can stop here as we now know that a hydrogen atom consists of a proton and a much lighter electron. No shell (although we sometomes talk of electrons occupying a shell), no triangles, no Anu. Well, there are the quarks to consider, but a hydrogen atom only has three of those, I think. Hey, maybe they got hold of a deuterium atom by mistake! ;)