Changes and Contradictions in Dr's work

[mr4v0]

Why wouldn't the valence for H be correct if it's amplitude element, what would be it's valence then?

[zeroone]

Nice thread Peace! Very important for all of us who study Dr's work.

Now about Hydrogen: The Secret of Light, page 265:
"In carbon are all of the elements of its previous stages, just as in man are all of the actions and reactions of his previous stages. Hydrogen is a one octave younger prototype of carbon. It forms on the wave amplitude at four-zero-four just as carbon forms at four-zero-four ane octave ahead. In hydrogen is a whole octave of elemental tones. ..."
Chapter: THE ELEMENTS OF MATTER - talks about arrangement of elements.

Zeroone

[Peace]

Why wouldn't the valence for H be correct if it's amplitude element, what would be it's valence then?

See the Fig in the first post about this thread from The Universal One. There it is explained. Mainly the principle is, that 1 Elements have a much lower pressure than e.g. 4 Elements. Therefore E.g. it needs 4 1 Elements to build a stable aggregate with a 4 Element. And as CH4 is the stable aggregate between Hydrogen and Carbon, this would mean, Hydrogen is a 1 Element.

Now about Hydrogen: The Secret of Light, page 265:
"In carbon are all of the elements of its previous stages, just as in man are all of the actions and reactions of his previous stages. Hydrogen is a one octave younger prototype of carbon. It forms on the wave amplitude at four-zero-four just as carbon forms at four-zero-four ane octave ahead. In hydrogen is a whole octave of elemental tones. ..."

Sure, as I said in all his later work, he always says Hydrogen is an amplitude element, no doubt about that. But when it is an amplitude element, Deuterium and Tritium cannot be Ethlogen and Bebegen and more important, we get problems in explaining the valency of Hydrogen...

[mr4v0]

H has +/- 1 valence (and C has +/- 4), that's why I'd put it on the amplitude.

[Peace]

H has +/- 1 valence (and C has +/- 4), that's why I'd put it on the amplitude.

??? I don't really understand, what you would ike to tell with that?

[mr4v0]

There are not many elements which can give and accept electrons. Most either give electrons (- valence elements) or accept (+ valence) when bonding. But H can do both, take 1e or give 1e. Similar to C, which can give 4e or take 4e in it's bonds.

But when it is an amplitude element, Deuterium and Tritium cannot be Ethlogen and Bebegen and more important, we get problems in explaining the valency of Hydrogen...

Deuterium and Tritium are different from H only in their mass number, not valence (or number of electrons). H has 1e 1n 1p, D has 1e 2n 1p and T has 1e 3n 1p. If I still remember correctly.

[Peace]

But H can do both, take 1e or give 1e

Quite an interesting point! Didn't thought yet about that...
Just read again a bit in the "A New Concept of the Universe". There Dr wrote, that Hydrogen and Carbon do have the same plane angle. So this is my suggestion, why Dr exchanged Carbogen with Hydrogen:
When he did the transmutation experiments at Westinghouse, he saw, that Hydrogen also was at a plane angle of 90° and not like he expected. So now, he knew it was an amplitude element and changed the elemental charts drawings accordingly.

But the Valency is still quite weird. What you said, would mean, that the 1 of the Hydrogen would actually be the 4. But from a valency point this is quite strange, as all other elements in the upper octave behave accordingly, why should there be such an odd difference in the Hydrogen octave. From Dr's work in the Universal One it is not relevant in which octave an element is, the valency is only dependant from which tone within an octave an element is. E.g. CO2 is the correct valency bond for Carbon and Oxygen. If you take an element an octave higher than Carbon, you have SiO2. Still the same bonding relation, although Silicon is in another octave. But if we go down one octave, we have H2O. This is not anymore the same bonding relation!
So why should it change there and not anywhere else?

Deuterium and Tritium are different from H only in their mass number, not valence (or number of electrons). H has 1e 1n 1p, D has 1e 2n 1p and T has 1e 3n 1p. If I still remember correctly.

Yeah, this was also one of my suggested possibilities in my first post. I also suggest Deuterium and Tritium are just isotopes (in the conventional sense) of Hydrogen, and not separate elements like Dr and Lao explained at several places.

[mr4v0]

I don't know about the first octave. It's strange in many aspects. If H is the 4th element, does that mean that lower elements have no electrons? But if it is the first element, then there should be unknown heavier elements than H - which is very unlikely.

[Peace]

I don't know about the first octave. It's strange in many aspects

Well, it's the first visible octave...

If H is the 4th element, does that mean that lower elements have no electrons?

Well electrons, as we know from conventional science do not exist in Dr's cosmogony. So this no electrons is not any real problem...

But if it is the first element, then there should be unknown heavier elements than H - which is very unlikely.

Yeah I already stated this in my first post. But there are also heavier elements than Hydrogen, even if it's an amplitude element.
But as I said, Hydrogen should be the most dense in it's octave, when it's an amplitude element. And if it's an 1+ element, then there should be at least 3 denser elements in this octave. And as I said in the first post, form this point of view, it is very unlikely, that we can see Hydrogen as 1+ element, but not the denser ones...
BTW: It's important to differentiate between weight (atomic) and density!

Actually as I see it, only the valency really speaks against Hydrogen as an amplitude element, everything else speaks for an amplitude element.
And as I already said, that I suggest that Dr found during his transmutation tests, that Hydrogen has an angle of 90°, I'm more on the amplitude element side. This actually means, that there is more complexity in the valency, which I don't understand yet.

[mr4v0]

Well electrons, as we know from conventional science do not exist in Dr's cosmogony. So this no electrons is not any real problem...

Of course they exist! Even Dr wrote that the Universe is electricaly (energeticaly) balanced down to the last electron. And he is talking about electrons in many parts of his work. We can't throw away every thing that science knows today. Dr's work isn't radical tearing apart of science, but more of a logical-reasoning and philosophycal aproach (not so effect related) to science. Experimentaly confirmed data still hold, and must hold. It's just a matter of interpretation and science has many misinterpetations - opposed to Dr's words.

And that electrons are real and are infact planets around a star (nucleus) is again stated in "The Electric Universe" (by W.Thornhill and D.Talbott - I can't thank you enough for directing me there Peace). They say that our Sun (and probably every other star in other systems) has imense positive charge oposed to other objects in the system. Planets and comets/asteroids are negatively charged bodies circling the positive primary. Now isn't that a description of an atom?? And Dr stated that atoms are solar systems on a different scale - nothing else to it.

Kind regards.