ELECTRONS DESCRIBED BY SPENCER LEWIS

 

The following article was published by Harvey Spencer Lewis in his pamphlet Cromaat G (1919) which was reserved exclusively for members of AMORC and in blue I added my comments.

 

 

 

THE TRUTH ABOUT ELECTRONS

 

The following is a comparison of the statements made regarding electrons and atoms by (1st) E.R. Fournier d’Albe in his recent book “The Electron Theory,” and by (2nd) the Rosaecrucian teachings prepared long before such book was published. Note also the comments made under d’Albe's statements, which will help you to appreciate the apparent contradictions and vague ideas held by science in regard to electrons and atoms.

 

 

Fournier d’Albe	RosIcrucian teachings
(The existence of electrons is assumed from some observations) “Us charge consists of what has hitherto been called ‘negative’ electricity.” – page 23. ‘‘The fundamental property of the electron which distinguishes it from ordinary matter Is that it repels another electron instead of attracting It. as two pieces of matter do” – page 23. (This statement assumes that there is matter in addition to electrons.)	(The existence of the electron is known from law and experiment) Electrons have either negative or positive charges: there being two kinds of electrons. (This is false since only negative electrons exist.) Electrons may repeal each, other or attract each other on the basis that like repeals like and attracts unlike, — negative attracting positive. etc.
“Each atom contains a number of electrons, but their electrical action is compensated by some force within the atom which, for lack of a better term, we may call ‘positive electricity’.” – page 26 (This statement attempts to explain away the fact that a number of negative electrons do hold together in an atom instead of repelling each other; therefore the admission of the existence of some unknown form of positive electricity within the atom.)	Atoms are composed of two or more electrons, half of which are positive or negative electrons: the attraction between these unlike electrons unites them; therefore each atom has both positive and negative charges within it. (Lewis was not updated because Ernest Rutherford had already discovered the existence of protons the year before.)
“We have, therefore, reason to suppose that in any uncharged lump of a divalent metal —say a ball of copper— there are at least twice as many electrons as there are atoms” – page 26.	There can be no metal or piece of matter in any form composed of atoms which is not charged with both positive and negative electricity due to the presence of positive and negative electrons in the atoms composing all matter. (This is incorrect because in normal conditions the charge of electrons and protons is neutralized.)
“Since the connection between the atoms and these electrons is not rigid, we may, suppose that this proportion (that there are twice as many electrons as atoms) is liable to variations.” – page 26. (Herein we note the first supposition regarding something so fundamental that it should be of positive knowledge.)	The so-called “connection” or pro­ portion between electrons In every atom is rigid according to a very definate law of harmony and proportion, and not left open to chance. The Divine Mind is the directing chemist. (This is also incorrect because we now know that the proportion of electrons can vary in each atom.)
“When the electrons are in excess of the usual number, we find that the boll is negatively charged; when there is a deficiency the ball is positively charged.” – page 27. (The term “usual number” would indicate that the scientist is aware of the fact that there is some law of proportion for the number of electrons in an atom, but how then can there be an excess of electrons in any atom?) (Various phenomena allow this, and the negative atom is called an anion and the positive atom is called a cation.)	When an atom contains one more negative electron than positive the atom has a negative polarity, and when there is one more positive electron the atom has a positive polarity; thus, Atoms, Like electrons, have either positive or negative charges due to predominance of either negative nr positive electrons in the atom. “An atom at rest” is one which contains three or more electrons, where there can be one more positive than negative or one more negative than positive electrons. When an atom is composed of only two electrons, it is not stationary in its nature, because, it naturally seeks either one more positive or one more negative electron to overcome its neutral condition, or disintegration follows as the result of its neutrality. (With each different element the neutrality of the atom that composes it varies.) This fact or law is utilized in the processes of transmutation and a principal of this law is manifested in the radio-active minerals where certain atoms with in the molecules are liberating their neutral electrons. (This is false and actually the transmutation occurs because the nucleus of the atom splits.)
“It follows from the law of attraction that an electron cannot be removed from a neutral atom without a very great force as compared with its mass.” – page 30. (If all the electrons are negative how can there be the law of attraction working between them or on them or with them? If, according to the foregoing statements, a neutral atom is one which contains only negative electrons, since positive electrons are denied, these electrons would repel each other, according to d’Albe's own statements.) (If Lewis were informed then he would know of the existence of protons which are positively charged particles.)	It is true that the force of attraction existing between a negative and positive electron in a neutral atom is the greatest force known in consideration of its mass. If this force could be released from the atoms found in ordinary pieces of matter, it would be sufficient to run the most powerful engines and motors.
"The attraction between the electrons In a neutral atom is the strongest cohesive force we know.” – page 30. (Can this refer to the attraction between negative electrons which we were previously told Is repulsion, or what is it?)	Both cohesion and adhesion in atoms and molecules are accounted for by the attraction due to the force of attraction created by the negative and positive polar of like and unlike electrons in all ities or charges of atoms and molecules because of the presence atoms.
"Of course, the electrons in a solid metal have widely varying velocities.” – page 33.	The electrons in all matter or composing all atoms have two actions which they transmit to and make a similar property bf the atom — namely, a revolving motion on their own axis and a radiation of the fundamental spirit energy within them at the rate of so many vibrations per second. (This Lewis is making it up.) The rate of vibrations, so far as even and uneven number are concerned, constituting the negative or positive charge of the individual electron; and the combined vibrations of the electrons in the atom constituting the nature of the manifestation of the atom or. In other words, its chemical property.
"In other words, what is the work, required to bring a company of electrons from infinite to the surface bf the earth? ... For the charge of the earth is negative. It repels electrons and attracts positive atoms.” – page 69. (Granting that the, earth IS negative In its polarity, it would repel all electrons if all electrons were negative; and assuming that this is true and that all electrons ate negative, again we may ask what constitutes a positive atom which the earth so strangely attracts?) (This is explained by the existence of cations, which are not attracted from space but created on Earth through chemical and electromagnetic phenomena.)	Electrons have their source in the infinite, but are directed toward the earth in positive and negative form or nature, In order to constitute the material existence or manifestation of things. The earth itself, being composed of gross matter, Is potentially negative because of the negative polarity of a predominating number of its atoms and molecules, and throughout all space the negative electrons attract the positive electrons, the negative atoms attract the positive atoms, and in this way atoms and molecules are formed and matter is brought into such form as permits its vibrations of the spirit energy to manifest to us grossly enough to be perceived by our gross objective senses. (This is also being made up by Lewis.)
“It Is likely, therefore, that an electron theory of the chemical atom will shortly come into being. Such a theory is made necessary by the facts of radioactivity where atoms are found throwing off electrons and positive particles. These electrons and positive particles must therefore have been constituents of the atom.” – page 282 (This means that the recent discovery of radioactivity has, upset all the previous theories regarding matter and its composition, whereas, if the theories had been true the observation of radioactivity should have supplied science with the best proof or evidence of the correctness of the theories. Furthermore, in the above statement reluctance is shown to call the radiating electrons by the proper names, negative and positive electrons.	Such chemical theory or law of the composition of matter is well known in the R+C teachings where it has been held for many years, that the atom is composed of negative and positive electrons; and radioactive minerals demonstrate this law by their action, which action never puzzled the R+C student nor has he had to, seek elsewhere than in his own teachings to know that such radio-action was a process of disintegration, where molecules were releasing the atoms and the atoms freeing the electrons into space once more. (This is false since radioactivity emits radiation, not atoms or electrons.)

 

 

(p.13-16)

 

 

 

 

 

OBSERVATION

 

It is very deplorable that Spencer Lewis should criticize the research that scientists were doing on atoms and electrons, claiming that he was a great eminence and that his allegations came from the Rosicrucian teaching, when it is evident that in reality his explanations are speculations that he himself made and which, to make matters worse, are full of errors and falsehoods. And this is one more example of how ignorant, conceited and charlatan was the founder of AMORC.