Alt-Physics Seminar topics
Where the differences between Dr. Reams and conventional medicine are addressed, along with related issues. If too technical, just scan the pictures and headings :)
Chapter 19, final chapter, serializing Befriending Your Biology; Physical Health from the Inside Out. New Substack series on re-imagining liberal arts colleges started recently.
Scope of Alt Physics Seminar
The Alt Physics Seminar goes into; and then beyond, Reams’ theory of ionization, to compare it with other alternative theories. The purpose is to explore Reams’ theory, how it may or may not, dovetail with other theories. The theories of Dr. Reams’ contemporaries, Rudolf Steiner, Dr. Jerry Tenant and a few lesser lights are briefly presented and presented for discussion.
Who attends Alt Physics Seminar?
An Alternative Physics seminar course exists at each Healthcare College. The seminar is usually small, 10–20 students. Who attends — and does not attend — this course has been studied. Why? The course is required for higher levels of analysis competency certification so attendance is a bottleneck in certifying more competent upper-level analysts. Who attends in MBTI terms, is revealing:
- 62% have iNtuitive Thinker (NT) personal preferences (four types).
- 30% have iNtuitive Feeler (NF) personal preferences (four types).
- 8% have Sensory Perceiver (SP) personal preferences (one type).
The largest group, NT preference, has four natural subdivisions:
INTJ (Architect)
INTP (Logician)
ENTJ (Commander)
ENTP (Debater)
Reference: https://www.16personalities.com/personality-types
“Dancing droplets” (2015)
The first activity of the first semester of Alt Physics Seminar is hands-on exercises to replicate, and document on video, the 2015 phenomena of the “Dancing droplets.” This sequence of experiments is to open the minds of students to the fact, much less is known in mainstream science and medicine, than its male leaders like to admit. The goal is to give students the experience of how in science, more questions than answers exist — even tho — left-brain dominant males assume the exact opposite.
dg-dancing droplets research.png
Video ~ Watch drops with higher concentrations chase drops with lower concentration of food coloring. Note all videos are speeded up. Real-time movement is 2 to 16 times slower. — “Dancing droplets” video (9 mins)
Brief explanation: The drops contain two different liquids, propylene glycol and water. Liquids consisting of two or more different solutes, exhibit movement and intelligence as shown in the video.
Significance: Inside our body, liquid mixtures of multiple solutions occur naturally. If such multiple-solute liquids exhibit “intelligence” as shown in the Dancing Droplet experiments, such movement and intelligence must be very common inside human bodies.
Can Reams’ ionization be used to help explain these movements? Alternatively, do these movement refute Reams’ theory?
Also raised is how the Dancing Droplets are in both opposite and similar to the movement and intelligence displayed by interfacial water; where, all solutes are strictly excluded. Getting students to acknowledge hard evidence for these TWO contrasting intelligences outside the historical male-dominated definitions of “intelligence” is crucial for students to acknowledge the innate intelligence of human bodies, immune system and cells goes far beyond corpse anatomy and pathology.
Students are led to consider this conclusion: Intelligence is more widely distributed in matter and living cells than male-dominated science teaches.
To Learn More
“Dancing Droplets” (Bring Science Home) (2015) — https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dancing-droplets/
The peer-reviewed paper: “Vapor-mediated sensing and motility in two-component droplets” authored by N. J. Cira, A. Benusiglio & M. Prakash, published in Nature (2015) 11 page PDF: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01338286/document
Second topic: a wood fire running backwards
Can Reams’ ionization theory be understood as a wood fire running backwards?
Conspicuous by its absence in this text so far is Reams’ theory of ionization. To introduce it, offered for consideration, is an analogy from Jon Frank, long-time student of Reams agriculture topics:
begin quote
… Imagine you are sitting around a campfire at night. Wood is burning, keeping you warm. What else is releasing beside heat energy, is light and sound. All of the energies released are on the electromagnetic spectrum. So burning wood releases and disperses energy.
When the fire goes out, you observe earth minerals in the form of ashes. What happened to the rest of the wood’s mass? Its matter went back into the atmosphere in gaseous forms.
Growing a crop, a plant cell or a human cell, is the exact opposite. Here all three forms of electromagnetic energies are brought together to make new life processes, making healthy soil, a healthy crop, a leaf, a stalk, a human cell. All three forces must be present and available to both soil, plant and human life, to make new cells. … Jon Frank
Slightly expanded and reframed from https://www.facebook.com/groups/178738658832328/user/100001336533239
end Q
The above is an artistic, imaginative introduction to the meat of the course, Reams’ theory of ionization. This has its natural context in…
Unified theories of everything
In mainstream science, 1905–1955, Albert Einstein was the first to conceive of, and conjure with, a united field theory. What Einstein ignored, what mainstream Western science dismissed, denied and ignored, was an overlapping history, 1890–1935, where Western metaphysical groups clarified ancient Eastern theories of everything. They found relevant cognates (unmistakably close similarities) in Western science.
The most famous early book bridging Eastern and Western “theories of everything” was the book, Occult Chemistry (illustrated 1908 first edition) by two Theosophical clairvoyants, Besant and Leadbeater. This book was never even reviewed in mainstream science. The 1951 third edition is now preferred.
In 1980, a modern scientist, Stephen M. Phillips, compared the findings reported in Occult Chemistry with modern particle physics theory” in a book, Extra-Sensory Perception of Quarks (1980) by Stephen M. Phillips, Theosophical Publishing House, Wheaton, Ill., 1980, ISBN 0–8356–0227–3.
A more recent book exists by the same author: Evidence of a Yogic Siddhi. Anima. Remote Viewing of Subatomic Particles, Theosophical Publishing House, Ahyar, 1996, ISBN 81–7059–297–6.
A Theosophical commentary on Phillips’ work also exists, Occult Chemistry Re-Evaluated (1982) by E. Lester Smith Theosophical Publishing House, Wheaton, Ill., ISBN 0–8356–0230–3.
To our knowledge, Phillips’ work has never even been seriously reviewed in mainstream scientific literature. Evidence for this is a detailed search, in the year 2000, of all standards peer-reviewed scholarly works in the field (including a search of Science Citation Index, now: Publons). A similar search, conducted in 2022, had the same result. Only one review was found, a scathing and skeptical one, dismissing the work by comparing it to non-scientific popular books.
In this way the major sub-text of the Alt Physics Seminar is presented: How little mainstream science knows about Nature, biology and chemistry. The unknowns almost outweigh the knowns. The Alt-Physics seminar was begun to foster and practice open enquiry, based on facts, and try to acknowledge and clear our unconscious biases and ignorance.
The goal is workable connections — or workable refutations — between ALL the following can be identified and established thru evidence-based, peer-reviewed papers:
- Reams-Beddoe ideas,
- Rudolf Steiner ideas,
- Jerry Tennant ideas,
- Walter Russell ideas, and
- Eric P. Dollard ideas.
Dr. Reams’ five biggest heresies
For those interested, here we “go into the weeds,” some details on Dr. Reams most famous “heresies.”
Dr. Reams “heresy #1”
According to mainstream science, the central, pivotal “heresy” of Dr. Reams, is his emphasis cell reproduction occurs primarily thru ionization (like metal plating, see below). Mainstream medical personnel believe cell reproduction in humans occurs exclusively by cell division (mitosis and meiosis). We have two crucial clarifying Reams’ quotes from the Rob Owens document:
begin Q
CLASS 1–5 (page unknown): A platelet is any cell that will carry oxygen and the platelets are all red blood cells. NOTE: Reams was specific how red blood “cells” are corpuscles and therefore multiply by dividing. Regular body cells attached by nerves to the brain are built by ionization. RBTI Desk Reference and Critique — http://www.brixman.com/desk-reference--critique.html
CLASS 1–5 (page unknown): Reams (1976? 1982?): The standard medical definition for mitosis is cell division and I don’t believe in it. For instance, they take live tissue specimens from a patient, look at it under a microscope, and they see this mitosis, the cells are apparently dividing, but I’ll tell you what they actually see, they see nature throwing out a worn-out cell. We don’t repair a damaged cell; the body throws it off as albumin and it’s replaced.
Source of above quotes: http://www.brixman.com/rob-owens-class-1-5.html
To gain clarity on the above, we need to expand briefly on in vitro, in vivo, Mitosis-meiosis and electroplating.
In vitro, in vivo
In vitro is what live cells do in an artificial environment, in a petri dish, a glass dish with gelatin and distilled water. This way, many cell activities, invisible in living bodies, can be observed directly.
In vivo is nothing artificial; it’s what live cells are doing or not doing, in live bodies. Confusion arises when cells behave one way in a petri dish and behave differently inside live living bodies.
Origin of mitosis
Reams does not mention, yet may also have disagreed with August Weismann’ 1887 conclusion the cells of worms reproduce by division (mitosis). Unclear to the present authors is whether Weismann performed actual observations (his eyesight was very poor for long periods of his life); and, if so, were they made in vitro or in vivo? In vitro seems more likely. Anyone know where detail on his original observations can be found?
Mitosis and meiosis
Mitosis (Asexual Reproduction) and Meiosis (Sexual Reproduction) are the mainstream view of cell reproduction.
Mitosis (Asexual Reproduction) is believed to be how a lizard grows its tail back after a bird chews it off. Mitosis is simple division of existing body cells. Each chromosome replicates, resulting in two genetically identical sister cells.
Mitosis occurs in humans whenever more cells of the same kind are needed. This happens throughout the entire lifespan of a living organism (human, animal or plant). it happens most rapidly during periods of growth. This means, in humans, the fastest rate of mitosis happens in the zygote, embryo and infant stage.
Meiosis (Sexual Reproduction) involves the division of sex cells. The division of a cell occurs once in mitosis but twice in meiosis. Two daughter cells are produced after mitosis and cytoplasmic division, while four daughter cells are produced after meiosis.
To Learn More
https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/mitosis-versus-meiosis
The Three Big What IFs
The Big What IFs in Dr. Reams’ theory are:
1) WHAT IF mitosis is the major mechanism for human cells ONLY OUTSIDE THE BODY IN VITRO?
2) WHAT IF inside the body, the major mechanism for human cell reproduction is similar to electroplating (ionization)?
3) WHAT IF human cell reproduction has two behaviors, two “faces,” depending on whether it occurs inside or outside a living body? What if human cells behave one way in a petri dish; and, behave differently inside live living bodies?
In the above way, Dr. Reams’ electroplating theory of cell reproduction is at odds with the mainstream view of cell reproduction.
The Alt-Seminar has been tasked with resolving the above questions. Tho experimental protocols for each of these have been proposed, we are sad to say, as of this writing, no peer-reviewed paper or text exists with experiments and evidence to prove:
- In vivo can one form of cell division be ruled out?
- In vivo, could both forms of cell division occur?
It turns out tho, asking and raising these questions, even if unresolved, does indeed open the minds of students to new knowledge.
You can contribute! If you know of relevant existing research or experiments, please contact one of the authors.
Electroplating
This is how one metal is “plated” onto another metal or plastic substrate. This is facilitated by passing electricity thru an electrolyte bath.
dg-metal plating
In the image above, it’s more clear the top parts have been plated with copper.
To Learn More
dg-youtube thumbnail
A do-it-yourself electroplating experiment video on Youtube: “DIY Electroplating With Copper and Metal! TKOR Experiments How To Do Electroplating At Home”
After studying Einstein, doing his own chemistry experiments, meditating on his results for decades, Reams came to believe in vivo, inside live bodies, cells do not divide, like amoebas. Instead, if we could see it directly, new living cells form thru attracting and aggregating ions available from surrounding solutions. Reams believed metal plating, plating one metal with another metal, in a water bath, with electrolytes and electricity, was closely analogous.
What evidence and support exists for Dr. Reams’ belief humans primarily form new cells in vivo, under the direction of the brain, from aggregating mineral ions and other cell-building liver products to form new cells?
The following quotes may be relevant; yet, by no means conclusive.
begin Q
The terms oxidation and reduction can be defined in terms of adding or removing oxygen to a compound. While this is not the most robust definition, as discussed below, it is the easiest to remember. Oxidation is the gain of oxygen. Reduction is the loss of oxygen.
“Oxidation and reduction in terms of oxygen transfer” (2020) — https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Analytical_Chemistry/Supplemental_Modules_(Analytical_Chemistry)/Electrochemistry/Redox_Chemistry/Definitions_of_Oxidation_and_Reduction#:~:text=The%20terms%20oxidation%20and%20reduction,is%20the%20easiest%20to%20remember.&text=Oxidation%20is%20the%20gain%20of,is%20the%20loss%20of%20oxygen.
C.H.E.M: In electroplating, nickel plating and chromium plating, there is a tank with a negative electrode (cathode) and a positive electrode (anode).
MANTHEI: In electroplating, nickel plating, chromium plating, etc., there is a tank with negative and positive electrodes. The negative electrode is called the cathode and the positive electrode is called the anode.
BEDDOE: Anode — The electrode at which oxidation occurs, the negative pole of a battery. In electrolytic cells the anode is considered positive. Oxidation is the process of break down or the loss of anions (electrons) [tho verbatim, this quote may not have been reviewed by Beddoe for accuracy].
OLSZTA: The negative side is called the cathode and the positive side is called the anode. Keep this in mind; and, Dr. Manthei’s statement how ionization is the moving of one or more particle(s) from a negative to a positive.
CLASS 1–5: Anions go to the anode, therefore they are negative particles. Neutrons are always negative.
CLASS 1–5: The liver is not a detoxifying organ, it is the nuclear reactor, the anode, for the whole system.
CLASS 1–5: The liver is our anode, the atomic reactor, for the whole system as far as interchanging anions and cations. The function of the liver is to put together some 5 billion different enzymes (or amino acids) a day (6 billion different kinds over a lifetime). If we are in perfect health, with an energy rating according to our age, it manufactures approximately 5 billion per 24 hour day. Six billion across infancy, babyhood, childhood, little boy, little girl and so forth.
SESSION 1–1975: If you have ever had any experience with silver plating, nickel plating, chromium plating or copper plating, you know the negative pole sends out the electron which picks up the particle of ionized metal in the plating tank. It takes them to the cationic pole or the positive pole. So, that is what is happening in our system.
end Q
Reams “heresy #2” Human energy comes from “resistance”
in his textbook pg. 21, Dr. Beddoe points to a common high school science experiment:
begin Q
Grapefruit baking soda experiment
Some of you may remember a high school chemistry or physics classroom experiment. A small yet measurable amount of electricity was generated using only a grapefruit and baking soda.
A small hole is cut in a fresh grapefruit. A wire is placed into the hole hooked up to a volt meter. A second wire is inserted into the grapefruit an inch or more away from the hole. Both wires are connected to a volt meter.
Now a small amount of baking soda is poured into the hole. The soda reacts with the juicy grapefruit. A foaming action occurs. The meter registers a current flow! As long as the foaming action continues, the meter registers a current flow.
What produces the current? The synchronizing of the acid and bases. When both substances are synchronized into new substances, the current stops; no more energy is released. The situation is now chemically stable again.
At a slower rate, this is what happens in digesting food, when cationic food meets anionic digestive fluids. … It is the energy given off during this process … which humans live on. In this way, man does not live off the food we eats. Rather, we live off the energy produced in the reaction between food and our digestive fluids.
Revised for clarity from Beddoe pg. 21 top of page in 7th edition.
end Q
But wait! There’s more.
begin Q
Note: Whenever a bond between atoms or between molecules is broken, heat and electricity are released. The “taking apart” process of ionization is all about breaking ionic bonds. When ionic bonds are broken, heat and electricity are always released. The electricity is in the form of electrons as anions and/or electrons as cations. Heat and electricity and energy-bearing matter is what we live on…
[Conventional biochem says] Glucose and oxygen go into every cell from the blood. Then in the mitochondria of each cell, these are turned into heat and electricity. This is an important energy source, extracted from the foods we eat. Yet it’s not the only energy source from the foods we eat. [Cationic~anionic friction is another source of energy] Reams-Black pg 44 (section highlighted in blue font)
end Q
To be fair, Reams-Beddoe acknowledge glucose. To be fair again, mitochondria were not known outside of research labs until 1957 at least or later. By 1957, Reams’ idea of body energy coming from “resistance” was already well-formed.
begin Q
Just as fire burns oxygen and gives off carbon dioxide and water, mitochondria act like furnaces when they convert glucose into adenosine triphosphate (ATP): They “burn” (use) oxygen and give off carbon dioxide and water. Because the process uses oxygen, it is said to be aerobic (as in aerobic exercise) — “How Cell Mitochondria Convert Food into Useable Energy” (year unknown) https://www.dummies.com/education/science/biology/how-cell-mitochondria-convert-food-into-useable-energy/
end Q
From “resistance” to “synergy”?
dg-spinning anions cations
WHAT IF neither resistance nor friction is what’s depicted. Where the anion and cation MEET, they both rotate in the same direction. An image of resistance- friction would be the ions rotating AGAINST each other. This would require them to rotate in the SAME DIRECTION.
In this simplified diagram, what’s depicted is more like synergy. “Synergy” is a word with little common usage when Reams was growing up. From 1847: Synergy means, “combined activities of a group.” From 1957: Synergy means a sense of “advanced effectiveness as a result of cooperation.” https://www.etymonline.com/word/synergy
“Synergy” only became a popular thing in the 1970s with the idea of win-win cooperation-collaboration replacing win~lose competition. WHAT IF the ions spinning in opposite directions are not competing, not in opposition but in cooperation, synchronizing to accelerate each others spin?
Another question: Is Reams’ idea of anion~cation identical to or different from acid~alkaline; or, is one or both situation-dependent?
Three sources of human energy?
In recent decades what some believe is true, which Reams-Beddoe were a bit vague on, is humans gain energy from multiple sources:
- Reams “resistance,” the breaking of ionic bonds, synchronizing of substances of different spin, clockwise and counterclockwise, and
- Burning of glucose and fats in the mitochondria (primarily in muscle cells, by which an increase of warmth (heat) is produced).
Of note in the 1990s, a third source of human energy was hypothesized. Dr. Jerry Tennant in his Healing is Voltage: The Handbook (2010 edition preferred) says -50 mV is required at the site of any physical injury. This higher negative voltage attracts positive ions of nutrition which the body then uses to repair injured tissue. This very close to Dr. Reams’ idea of “ionization.”
The Alt-Physics-Biology Seminar has been tasked with:
- exploring these topics,
- rectifying and conforming similar language,
- proposing experimental protocols,
- writing and publishing papers.
Reams “heresy #3” Cancer is nothing more than accumulated dead cells
Reams theory of cancer is a prize example of a phenomena encountered again and again in both Specialized Kinesiology and in Dr. Reams’ legacy:
begin Q
Even if Reams’ concept of [insert outlandish Reams idea here] makes no sense at all in theory, it may be 100% workable in practice.
End Q
Not until the later 2040s was this phenomena discussed openly.
Reams’ theory of cancer has three parts:
- Cancer is no more than dead cells accumulating in the body, untimely in the body, hanging around too long, with no way to get out of the body,
- Cancer is dead cells who are disconnected from nerves connected to the brain, and
- Cancer is cells who have lost all reserve energy.
Reams “heresy #4” All disease is caused by a lack of minerals
This theory is addressed most succinctly in The Mineral Diet (2021) by Pierce Waychoff, DC.
Reams “heresy #5” The human body can manufacture vitamin C
But only if the lymph is and remains in the A Range.
Other lesser “heresies” can be listed as well.
The above are the kinds of topics the Alt Physical Seminar tries to match evidence to.
