>>16896863I don't know if this helps or not and I'm shit at science, but I know the acronym ORME is not really encouraged these days.
http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/Definitions.htm"I agree that D.H. deserves credit for discovering this material, but we should use terms that describe what we really have to avoid confusion in the future. What we are really working with here are valence coupled diatomic elements, so they should be called something along that line so that people do not try to visualize a nonexistent monatomic structure. ORME was very misleading to me and I[f] Gary hadn't pointed out that they are actually diatomic, I could have never passed go. In this regard, I think Gary deserves just as much credit as Hudson."
This gentleman was quite insistent that we not use the acronym "ORME" in describing these materials but was okay with using the terms "m-state" and "ORMUS".
For these and other reasons we rejected the use of the acronym ORME (which stands for Orbitally Re-arranged Monoatomic Element) since David Hudson and his scientific consultants have not provided any conclusive scientific evidence, that these materials are orbitally re-arranged or monatomic, to the public.
While we have not seen any clear evidence that these materials are monatomic, diatomic or something else we still need some way to distinguish them from their metallic form. I do think that there is enough accumulated evidence to say that these elements in the ORMUS form do not respond to most types of spectroscopic analysis in the same way as they do in their metallic form. If there is a single defining physical property for the ORMUS elements it would have to be this spectroscopic ambiguity. It sometimes even looks like they are something else when they are assayed spectroscopically.
