Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
comment + criticism welcome
`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2012 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit

Early Arguments

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 13:59:56 +0000
Fwd Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:02:38 -0500
Subject: Time Running/Run Out?

Einstein Podolsky & Rosen set up an experiment aimed at clarifying 'quantum mystery' of entanglement.  But it didn't.  So Bell, a Scot [wrong - an Irishman], worked out the theoretical framework needed for verification or otherwise, and Aspect (French) later did the actual experiments.

Maybe reluctantly Einstein said "It is possible that there exist emanations that are still unknown to us.  Do you remember how electrical currents and unseen waves were laughed at?"

From Aspect himself:
"Instantaneous change!  Faster than light signalling?"

Review at:
"1. They link events at separate locations without known fields or matter."
"2. They do not diminish with distance; a million miles is the same as an inch."
"3. They appear to act with speed greater than light."

Apparent conclusion #1 - there is a force acting on quantum level (on particles) which is instantaneous over arbitrary distances

Strangely the establishment let the dust gather over this discovery.

Later: Allais Effect

"The result obtained by Allais (1954) concerning the shift of the oscillation plane of the pendulum during eclipse was observed again by G. Jeverdan in 1961 and then later in 1970 was observed again by Allen and Saxl (1971)."

In 1999 NASA noisily previewed test of "Allais Effect" - of total eclipses on Foucault pendulums.
"Noever [NASA] doesn't expect to find proof to support Allais, but believes such a theory must be investigated."

Note - NASA commonly announces "mysteries" they can later debunk with mundane causes.  Didn't seem to work in this case!

In correspondence with Noever I recommended using gyroscopes instead of pendula (more sensitive) but NASA's protocols seemed 'conservative' - i.e. not aimed at best detection of anomalies:  ansci4.html#tom

After the eclipse - which also 'produced/caused' waves of earthquakes from Greece, Turkey to Taiwan, Japan with thousands of fatalities - there was one 'wait and see' article from NASA: then deafening silence!

Think we can ignore subsequent claims of "atmospheric cooling = gravity change" and "ground cooling = tilt" 'cos either would take much too long (not instantaneous) and produce only tiny effects - nowhere near actual results.

Apparent conclusion #2 - there is a force acting on macro level (on gyroscopes, pendula and whole continents) which is instantaneous over astronomical distances - and theoretically 'universal' .

By definition all advanced beings in Galaxy/Universe should know this force and be modulating it for real-time comms - as we modulate e.m.r for 'slow radio/TV' - and be manipulating it for their own purposes (as we manipulate nuclear for propulsion & energy etc).

More importantly, _all_ advanced beings using that force would have instantaneously been made aware of an anomalous "blip" - among constant beacons and data streams - at 5:29:45 am on July 16, 1945, from Trinity Site in New Mexico, U.S.A - later to be followed by others.

This fact is likely not news to some powerful agencies - maybe for decades.

See - reports.html - Find "Eisenhower"

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 12:02:01 +0000
Fwd Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2004 08:50:26 -0500
Subject: Re: Good News For Causality? - Dickenson

> From: Larry Hatch
> Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:13:39 -0800
> Subject: Good News For Causality

> Physicists in Switzerland have confirmed that information
> cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light.

Hello again Larry,

Having a second shot 'cos it seems _someone_ may be trying to orchestrate a dumb-down (of joe public) over experimental results that have already been kept fairly quiet for some decades now.

It's all about "entanglement info" - which is shown to travel over arbitrary distances 'instantaneously' - no matter how far, with whatever intervening!

Clearly that "info" cannot be traveling via any form of radiation or energy known to modern science - unless someone is keeping a tight lid on it.

But there are simple experiments _anyone_ can do to demonstrate that mysterious force, which the scientists cannot or will not explain.

What experiments?

Spin a coin on a table, or a spinning-top, or ride a bicycle or motor-bike.

Yup - all those have `unexplained stability' - staying upright mainly - which science can't understand or explain (although you'll find many long "descriptions").

That stability obviously (IMHO) comes from the same force that gives `inertia' - another unexplainable phenomenon - to mass (because that weird stability is merely `added inertia').

And, almost as obviously, from the same "instantaneous force" which holds matter together and links all `particle info' - universally.

Now that was fairly easy to grasp even for dumb clucks like us - so why is mainstream science acting so scared?

Ask about any of the above effects and you'll get a forced laugh - "Ha-ha You're not asking me about spinning-tops are you?" (or gyroscopes etc)

Repeat the question and you'll get a long thoughtful silence. (If your "scientist" isn't an instant BS merchant - If he is, ask him to write it down & sign it).

Why is this whole area off-limits to career scientists? (Check "badsci.txt")

Well, up-front implications (f.t.l comms / disruption / propulsion) and hidden implications (instantaneous energy-pattern transfer - i.e. induced `sights' `sounds' `thoughts') might be a _little_ sensitive right now.

Spin that coin!

Ray D

[See later update & confirmation]

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 21:24:18 +0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 08:03:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Good News For Causality? - Dickenson

> From: Bruce Maccabee
> Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 22:52:12 -0500
>Subject: Re: Good News For Causality?

> So you explain one "unknown" - for example, why a spinning
> top stays on its point - with another "unknown" - a force that
> "creates" inertia?

Bruce, I know how you must feel.

Maybe I should've put a health-warning on that message, for anyone who's been taught formal physics in last half-century.  Why? - Because I say, along with Lee Smolin, that "there is at least one good reason not to believe the physics that is taught in most courses... It's not true."

Present day physics is in a mess. Like you said "we don't really have a clue as to what is _really_ going on".

In the last twenty years or so all the confident ideas of "Standard Models" (including your electromagnetic cause of matter), of "Gas Laws", of "Black Hole Theory" (actually Singularity Theories), of "Quantum Theory" and "Relativity Theories", have _all_ been discovered to be "flawed" or "incomplete" (see "Blind Science").

That is, they're _not_ true.

And the top physicists know the rules aren't true - but they aren't encouraged to say so, outside of a very small circle of "experts".

Why are those rules still being taught in most colleges?  Mainstream science hasn't anything to put in their place, and our "leaders" think there'll be a panic if everyone finds out.

I'll say again - mainstream science _doesn't_ know reason or cause of a) matter, b) mass, c) inertia (and lots of other things but those three are basic and interdependent).

Which of course means they haven't a clue where the _extra_ inertia of a spinning coin or a "top" or even a bike comes from (because they don't know where `ordinary' inertia comes from - but it's got to be the _same_ source).

And mainstream science similarly can't say how "entanglement info" is transmitted at far FTL speed, thru all obstacles, apparently linking particles instantaneously throughout the universe.

Here's two summations - "Physics is in all sorts of trouble" - Hilary Lawson - (21st Cent.) and "What the scientists say now is likely to be false" - Nigel Calder - NOW, quoted in [badsci.txt].

Spin that coin!

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 14:06:05 +0000
Fwd Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:55:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Good News For Causality? - Dickenson

> Fom: Brett Holman
> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:24:17 +1100
> Subject: Re: Good News For Causality?


You'll have to forgive (or not) my refusal to debate your page of defensive quibbles.  On analysis they're either specious, mutually contradictory or attempts to put words in my mouth.

More constructively, here's a recap:

1) Mainstream science doesn't know reason or cause of a) matter, b) mass, c) inertia (which is also _momentum_), the three basic, vital foundations of the 'material' - protonic - universe and all its particles.  Therefore 'science' hasn't a clue where extra inertia of a spinning top or coin comes from, altho' it must have same source as 'ordinary' inertia (Occam's Razor).

That's an unknown 'Force' in the universe.

gives details of NASA's noisily previewed 1999 test of "Allais Effect" - of total eclipses on Foucault pendulums.

After the eclipse (which also 'produced/caused' waves of earthquakes from Greece, Turkey to Taiwan, Japan with thousands of fatalities) there was one 'wait and see' article from NASA:
then deafening silence!

I'll ignore subsequent claims of "atmospheric cooling causing gravity change" or "ground cooling causing tilt" 'cos either would take too long (not instantaneous) and produce only tiny effects - nowhere near actual results.

That's an unknown 'Force' in the universe.

3) Einstein Podolsky & Rosen experiment, reset by Bell's Theorem and tested by Alain Aspect gave these results:
click on last slide for review.

Aspect himself says/asks - on last slides - "Instantaneous change! Faster than light signalling?"

That's an unknown 'Force' in the universe.

There you are Brett - it's easy. No defensiveness, no havering, no quibbles, no personal remarks.

Just three clear positive statements.

Ray D

From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:53:36 +0000
Fwd Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 07:44:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Good News For Causality? - Dickenson

> From: Brett Holman
> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 04:17:13 +1100
>Subject: Re: Good News For Causality?


Let's get a couple of things straight - for us laity (I don't like use of loaded words like "lay" - reeks of exclusivity, false pride and even hubris).

1) Quotes -
If one quotes <<in most courses ... It's not true>> the three dots indicate words in between that _don't_ change the literal or factual or statistical sense.  Which is exactly true of that quote. However you shouted "quoting ... outrageously partial". That's specious my friend, next thing to deceit.

2) Momentum -
Brett, I hesitate to tell you, but everything we know is moving - we don't know of anything that's really "at rest".  But for Newtonian convenience we pretend some things are not moving and just have inertia (of mass); we say other things are moving (it's all relative) and so have momentum, i.e. mass x velocity (relative to us).

In reality we know that everything in the universe is moving and really has full momentum - hence inertia = momentum.  The use of two different words is partly historical and partly avoidance of inconvenient questions from the class smart-alec.

[Actually, when I was teaching the obligatory math/physics to some - highly qualified - military/other folk, I always found the argumentative ones a real boon, moving things along in a lively way.  Conversely I knew we'd have to start further back with those addicted to jargon & buzz-words - no grasp of basic principles.  All physics is expressible in short words - else it's waffle.]

Please, no more talk of science "high priests" alone fit for "inner secrets" kept from "lay" folk.

If physics is true then everyone can and should understand it and be taught it.

For background to this exchange (shall we call it "Unknown Force in the Universe" - or "Failure of Physics"?) you can try -
[last three messages above]

There's clearly some way to go.

Ray D

"matter is essentially force, and nothing but force"
- Alfred Russel Wallace

"There is no law of nature yet known to us but may be apparently contravened by the action of more recondite laws or forces"
- Alfred Russel Wallace

[ Google ]

Perceptions MAIL

can we

take off the blindfolds?

Visit W3Schools
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor


struggling editor ?



broken link? - please tell
mail Perceptions

Copyright © 2014 Ray Dickenson

this page

Share This