Editor’s Note: Read the first part of this paper here.
A paper published by cardiologist Dr. Martin Mendelson (1860-1930) says: “The forces that cause the circulation of blood in the living organism are of a completely different nature than that of the heart being sufficient to independently cause the motor events in the fluid circulation of the body. The heart alone is incapable of accomplishing such a tremendous feat. This idea is actually so absurd that it is almost incomprehensible how it has been able to retain validity through the centuries.”7
Mendelsohn, an experienced practicing physician, further wrote: “Which physician (…) would not have encountered sufferers whose hearts were overly dilated and stretched and appeared in such flaccidity that no muscle performance could be expected from them at all or at best only a wholly inadequate muscle performance. (…) for, in spite of, all theory their cycle (…) shows perpetual existence in almost undiminished perfection.” In every textbook, it is said that the heart muscle is a pressure pump on the arterial side and a suction pump on the venous side. “But from where should the heart get its suction?” asks Mendelsohn. “A muscle which has been contracted and then slackens again has no sucking power, since its slackening is a passive process.” This becomes obvious immediately if one considers the function of a muscle: No slackening muscle that has moved a load by contraction can push it back again in the same way by slackening. William Harvey (1578-1657), the founder of modern circulatory theory, saw it this way: “It is not true, as is commonly believed, that the heart draws blood into the chamber by virtue of any motion of its own, or even by extension, for by slackening it receives blood (…) The veins themselves continually return blood to the heart. The heart chambers are filled with blood like reservoirs, like a pond for the blood.”8
According to Dr. Mendelsohn, the heart is an enlarged blood vessel with the sole function of serving as a measuring vessel, so that a certain amount of blood is available to the circulation at a certain time. The heart requires by far the largest part of its muscular strength to close and open the valves. The pulsation of the blood is generated by the capillaries through suction forces, minimally amplified by the heart. “But if this proved correct, the entire heart industry and its heart transplants would be on the verge of extinction because they are based solely on the pump theory. Heart drugs would be ready for the trash can because they too are based on the pump theory,” wrote raum&zeit at the time.
But then what is it that gives the blood its movement? To this William Harvey says, “Movement is inherent in the blood. This movement of the blood and the beating of the heart are the causes of circulation.”9 Harvey would certainly have liked to trace the entire circulation of the blood back to the heart’s pumping function. However, he was apparently a researcher committed to science who did not simply sweep his own observations that contradicted his hypothesis under the rug. Thus, after examining a fertilized chicken egg, he wrote: “First there is the drop of blood which beats. What causes this throbbing itself remains debatable.”10
Experiments on the stationary pig heart show how, despite the left ventricle being stationary, the right ventricle fills to over distension. What force causes this? Harvey describes this too: “Several times I have observed: After the heart rested as in dead sleep, there was in the blood itself, which is contained in the chamber (of the heart), a movement, an inflow, a certain throbbing.”11 The inherent movement of the blood is also confirmed by an observation of Pomerance and Davies, who report a malformed embryo without a heart that died only at birth.12 Such observations of the cardiovascular system tell us that blood is moved not by pressure precisely, but by its own biological impulse and intrinsic flow patterns. According to Marinelli et al, the intrinsic shape of blood is the vortex pulsating longitudinally and transversely, determining the shape of its vessel rather than passively inserting itself. The inherent vortex drives the blood even before the heart begins to beat, as demonstrated by J. Bremer. It is merely timed by the heart muscle and slightly amplified by the pressure wave stimulating the vortex formation. The arteries imitate the heartbeat in a supportive manner. They increase the spiral motion of the blood by dilating to receive the incoming blood and contracting again to increase the blood’s own flow impulse.
Negative pressure gradient
A comparison with a so-called Bourdon gauge supports this statement. If it shows a positive pressure gradient, it straightens like a pressurized garden hose. With a negative pressure gradient, it curves more. During systole (blood leaving the ventricle), the aorta curves more, meaning there is a negative pressure gradient. This is not consistent with a puncture. Instead, it can be shown that the low pressure in the aorta is due to the vacuum present in the forward-flowing blood vortices. Thus, the movement of the aorta unmistakably contradicts the pressure model of blood.
A pressureless movement can only be based on vortex momentum. This principle was thoroughly investigated by the Austrian natural scientist Viktor Schauberger (1985-1958) and manifested in his various inventions and constructions. A famous example is the wood floatation system, which cannot function according to known physical laws. It was based on the cooling force of the vortex, which increased the buoyancy of the water. But the vortex, which is found everywhere in nature, is still treated very step-motherly by physicists.
In an impulse-driven fluid, pressure is merely a potential that manifests itself when motion is arrested. At the moment of impact the velocity of the fluid decreases and at the same time a certain pressure value appears. This is exactly what Rudolf Steiner recognized: The blood pressure does not generate the movement, but is the result of the blood movement. This can even be demonstrated experimentally. If pressure is applied to a fluid, it will initially resist due to inertia and viscosity. In a pressure-driven system, the pressure increases faster than the velocity of the fluid; the pressure reaches its maximum before that of the velocity. However, if pressure and flow are measured simultaneously in the aorta, it is found that the peak velocity occurs well before the pressure maximum. This was observed by Chauveau and Lortet in 1860.13 It contradicts the law of inertia of inert fluids.
Another observation in favor of the impulse theory of blood flow was made by M. I. Noble in 1968.14 Simultaneous measurements of the pressure in the left ventricle of a dog’s heart and in the junction with the aorta showed that the pressure in the left ventricle exceeded the pressure in the aorta only during the first half of systole and that the aortic pressure was higher during the 2nd half. Noble found it paradoxical that blood flow from the aorta continued throughout systole despite the “false” pressure gradient. However, this observation has not found its way into the textbooks either: They continue to pretend that ventricular pressure is greater than in the aorta during the entire period. Noble suggested in vain that the observed pressure behavior must be due to impulse flow.
Bremer, in his experiments with chick embryos mentioned earlier, had found two distinctly separate eddy currents with different velocities of propagation in the blood. The two currents move on their own spiral paths as well as around each other in longitudinal direction. They do not fill the veins and appear to move in separate segments. Bremer shows in a film how the swirling blood flow is amplified by the heartbeat without creating turbulence. This means that the momentum transfer between the heart and blood is in phase. Thus, the heart must somehow sense the blood motion and respond with a spiral impulse that has the same velocity as the blood vortices, synchronizing the blood and heart impulses.
Read more on embyonic studies regarding blood flow here.
That there are highly organized vortical structures in the ventricles of the heart was confirmed by H. Irisawa, who tried in vain to demonstrate that a saline solution is evenly distributed in a dog’s heart. On the contrary, it was shown that the vertebrae have different concentrations of the salt solution. The highly organized vortices apparently prevented mixing.15
G. A. Brecher performed an experiment on a dog that revealed an area of continuous negative pressure in the ventricle.16 This confirms that there is a vortex in the ventricle with its negative pressure center and positive pressure potential present in its periphery throughout the cardiac cycle.
Thus, the heart is not only composed of tissue but also of a perpetual blood vortex pattern that provides a constant vacuum in its center, which in turn could draw blood from the fine capillaries and veins. The existence of the vortex explains the anomaly that the supposed heart pump retains 40 percent of its filling, while an efficient mechanical pump would have to expel nearly 100 percent. As a pump, the heart would in any case be a misconstruction.
The 4th phase of water
Finally, another hypothesis about the driving agent of blood flow. It is the so-called “Fourth Phase of Water” discovered by the US physicist Dr. Gerald Pollack. It is said to be a state between solid (ice) and liquid (water) and to have some strange properties.17
Pollack describes in the chapter “Water – Nature’s Engine” an experiment in which, within a Nafion tube placed in a beaker, a continuous flow begins. Pollack is able to prove that the energy comes from electromagnetic radiation, especially from the infrared range. Could the bloodstream, which is known to be 90 percent water, be partly fed by this? It would certainly be worthwhile to investigate this further.