I have done study/research/experiments on this material for over 10 years now and have LOTS of data on it if anyone is interested. I do not know if it is "Manna" or not....but there IS merit to the claims, I have seen this first hand myself.
Be Well
HR
A few things here:
Monatomic gold simply refers to the neutral state of the
element gold (not a molecule). Which is to suggest that it is monatomic form (one atom). This is in contrast to a molecule like oxygen, which is diatomic in its natural state ( O2 ). In O2, there are two oxygen atoms--but this is still considered an element and not a molecule because this is the neutral "elemental" state of the substance (much as with iodine [I2] or bromine [Br2]).
It's not really proper to discuss mercury as being "one proton" away from being gold. This is true under a basic conceptualization of the chemistry at play--but the reality is that "one proton" makes a huge god damn difference in the physical world. Ask hydrogen and helium if you don't believe me.
This is even more true for the comparison of margarine to plastic which is totally unscientific and unrealistic. Water is almost
hydrogen peroxide (only one atom away, much closer than margarine is to plastic), but it doesn't really make sense to compare the two substances this way--because those tiny differences (one atom here, another atom there) make an ENORMOUS difference with regard to reactivity and physical properties. Try drinking 100%
hydrogen peroxide and see how that feels (you will begin to die and agonize before it makes it even halfway down your esophagus).
It is possible to generate gold from mercury because we understand the physics governing this atom very well, but there is no information to be gleaned from this understanding that informs a better understanding of the usefulness of this method/material. The two concepts have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.
Now, with those corrections in place let's move on to the meat.
ORMEs refers to "Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements".
This is a fictional class of elements which was hypothesized incorrectly through misapplication of concepts having to do with "deformed" or "altered" nuclei.
What the originators of this hypothesis failed to realize is that these nuclear phenomena are only observed in particle accelerators and nuclear reactors at EXTREMELY SHORT timescales. This is not an effect which can be stabilized or taken advantage of.
Now, it would require some chemistry knowledge to fully explain the following list of chemical properties/contradictions which would be expected based on the prevailing hypothesis of ORMEs--so instead of fully explaining them I will briefly outline them for laymen below.
1. Gold would be diatomic in its neutral state, possessing an
ionic bond between the two gold molecules. The result would be that gold would dissolve in water.
2. The patent application by the originator of this idea suggests that the IR spectra he provided demonstrate the "electron pairing" in his new substance. Unfortunately IR spectrometry is incapable of determining this, because the electron interactions would only respond to radiation in the UV range. This demonstrates the researcher lacks understanding of chemical bonding and the nature of radiation. IR spec depends on the vibration of chemical bonds caused by IR radiation--while bonds represent a sharing of electrons, the researcher here has misidentified these interactions as having to do with "electron pairing" which is a totally different concept.
3. His patent application is riddled with spelling and nomenclature errors, demonstrating his lack of expertise yet again. Cis-platin becomes "sys-platinum", unfortunately cis has a very specific meaning within chemical nomenclature and sys means nothing at all.
4. He repeatedly uses units which are incompatible with one another. At one point suggesting there are 10^18 ergs per gauss. Unfortunately ergs are an energy unit equal to ~100 nanojoules and gauss is a unit of magnetic flux (not energy) equal to 100 microteslas. He even mentions that the magnetic field of Earth is "several gauss" when in fact it is less than 1.
5. He claims that superconductors are in your body now, while a superconducting quantum interference device (which would certainly detect these) has never been able to substantiate this claim.
6. He appears, repeatedly, to make the claim that somehow HAu is different from AuH. This, for lack of a better way to say it, takes a fat shit on the face of chemical science. It makes absolutely zero sense. It's like saying HOH is different from H2O. If the atoms are connected the same way, it's the same stuff. The only reason chemists flip these around sometimes is to properly show which atom is connected to which--a convention which the researcher here appears to have assumed had a meaning that it does not.
In the end we should be very happy that, in fact, his claims are not substantiated--because soluble forms of precious metals happen to be very toxic. I can assure you with 1 million percent certainty that you would be dead within 24 hours if you ingested any appreciable amount of them.
As for the manna comparison, God created/dropped manna for the Israelites to consume. There is no reference to Moses having "made" it, ever.
What this all stems from is a guy who had what was likely absolutely zero chemical training who believed himself qualified to make determinations which would require SIGNIFICANT knowledge of chemistry. To make the discoveries he claims to have, one would need to possess at least 5x the chemical knowledge which I myself can claim--and through reading the patent here I have convinced the living hell out of myself that there is no way this guy has such expertise.
Now, could the resultant slurry here be of use to plants? Certainly, it contains magnesium and calcium hydroxides.
The process here is nothing more than a day one Chemistry 101 laboratory exercise having to do with solubility of group I and II metals. I performed this exact reaction in my first ever general chemistry laboratory course.
I'm not suggesting that this recipe isn't helpful to plants, or that it might not be a great thing to try--hell I'm considering giving it a go, as I much prefer the freedom to apply calcium and magnesium separately (which is possible after some further separation here).
However, I would be remiss if I had not called into question the rest of the claims of ORMEs. The name says it all, from the perspective of an
actual chemist.
"Orbitally rearranged" is a non-sensical statement given the procedure outlined by the researcher here for several reasons:
1. Orbitals are EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND AND DISCUSS. This probably represents the most difficult concept in all of chemistry (and may even rival much of what physics does, as physics is also involved here). And Hudson has made it very clear that he simply doesn't have the expertise required.
2. Even if he did understand orbitals, it would be very clear that "rearrangement" of them is not possible if chemical bonds are kept constant. IE, you can't end up with "orbitally rearranged" water. Water is water, and when the atoms are hooked up as they are in water--the orbitals will also be arranged in a particular way. I likely can't give you sufficient proof here unless you understand orbitals, but suffice it to say that orbitals are hybridized through bonding.
The shape they take on is absolute and the geometry of molecules is a direct result of the orbital hybridization. In short, if there is truth to this guy's statement--then virtually everything we know about chemistry is wrong. This does not seem reasonable considering the highly predictive nature of chemistry. You give me 3 atoms bonded together, and I can tell you the bond angles (to within 0.005% error) and lengths based on molecular orbital theory.
Show me two substances and I'll tell you if they'll react. 90% of all reactions ever performed would never have happened or been discovered without a discrete understanding of orbitals--an understanding which Hudson attempted to undermine or misrepresent here.
TLDR: Try it for your plants, because it makes sense it would be helpful--but in terms of the science claims: Sense makes none. The guy tried REALLY HARD, and frankly I've never seen someone go so far with so little actual knowledge.
This is a dude who is REALLY GREAT at sounding like he knows what he's talking about--but to a professional he appears very clearly as what he is, a hack and a liar. It is impossible to both fail so miserably to make a cogent chemical point AND to at the same time possess any appreciable chemical education/knowledge.
It is my opinion that this guy is pretending to know stuff that he does not by doing some reading and learning some fancy terminology and that he very clearly knows that is what he is doing.
Totally reprehensible and useless imvho.