|LATER||Quick Ans||Answer||Which way?||mystery||'black hole'?|
|SPIN TOP?||Info Rqst?||China reqst 3||China reqst 2||China reqst 1||DANGER|
|Your stuff||LINK offer2||LINK offer||Criticism||"Snow Job"||Sir Arthur's query|
Saturday, December 08, 2001, 07:03:09 (gmt)
Think "radially" friend - all effects called 'Forces' are actually radial.
Going to"UEFindex" finds a page
"abolish" - gives small example for "nuclear/molecular forces" then
"radiation" - gives the full radial working for e.m.r, then
"footnotes3" - gives 'how it works for almost everything else' then
"smt" - gives universal background
Once a person gets it, they'll maybe come back to [here/ this page] to nitpick early mistakes / slips in old UEF pages, and welcome !
Subject: UEF - thinking radially Date: Sat, 08 Dec 2001 11:56:00 +0000
Hello Richard, have posted a quick reply [above], maybe more considered word:-
It hurts the brain to make that first flip - abandoning a "gravity pull" - and it's still necessary to continually remake the flip when getting a grip on calculations, even after more than 6 years of working with it. That's because we're all brainwashed with that "gravity pull" from early childhood.
A gentle intro is by that route suggested, but we personally think a quick advance look at footnotes3 (just scroll down to that exploding ice-cream factory) might ring the bell.
The real nitty-gritty is: 'gravity' is a shadow in a Force. It's an effect, not a 'Force'
When that is established - (but be warned - it won't stick - you'll have to painfully redo it each time) - then it's time to have a look at unreality of other so-called 'magic Forces'.
[Query - why do scientists believe in separate "Forces" link anyway? Because it hurts to set aside ingrained false assumptions - like a 'pull of gravity'. Gravity is actually a `push' by the radially surrounding basic force - UEF - which is also the cause of the other so-called "Forces": nuclear, electromagnetic etc.]
Posted Wednesday, December 05, 2001, 04:25:29 (gmt)
"U.E.F. Theory basically says that two masses such as the earth and the moon are not attracted to each other but are pushed together by UEF. One object blocking some of the push on the other.
How come this this force happens to be in line with a straight line between the two objects. Why does it not behave like water or air pressure. In other words why doesn't this force flow around all sides of the masses. Does this force have a fixed direction in space and how do we know that direction?
Subject: a comment on the UEF Theory Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 18:35:04 +0000
Hello Nada Hoda, great message, for several reasons:-
First - the interesting information it contained. Although science says that certain mutual planetary effects were greater in the very distant past ref-01 due to subsequent slow-down / loss of angular momentum, conditions as recent as 1,400 years ago were substantially like today's. So the existence of that knowledge you've quoted, superior or extra to that of modern science, is mysterious, as you say.
Second - the research was confined to available historical sources. No search was made of religious texts. So your message gives an opportunity to ask for input from any reader who knows of such forecasts / references. That is, of cyclical effects ref-02 occurring maybe daily, or monthly, or biannual, or annual or even longer - from religious texts.
Third - folk-lore information ref-03 (unwritten 'history' - recently becoming available), promises to be a valuable resource. The Arabic tradition has a longer written science history ref-04 than Europe's and may have even more unwritten. If you or any other readers have information on traditional cyclical forecasts of any kind, from the Arabic tradition or from others, we hope you might send it in.
So thanks for this opportunity,
Subject: a comment on the UEF Theory. Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 17:05:38 -0800 (PST)
From:nada hoda <laiamita***>
Hi there Sir,
Well first of all I would like you to know that I am not a scientist or something like that .. I`m just an ordinary person who has found some relation between what the UEF Theory states and an Islamic belief that informs Muslim people to be aware of the "Full-Moon effects".
To be honest, we 'ordinary people' didn`t know that the moon affects us physically or mentally.
But we Muslims have some "Soora" -a verse in the Holy Book (The Quràn) - named "Al-Falaq", which states a warning of the Full-Moon phenomenon in its 3rd "aya". And we do read and repeat this verse 5 times a day - after each prayer - and also when we want to protect ourselves from evil and devil.
Also there is a "hadeeth" - which is a saying of the Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him - in which he warns his wife from the Full-Moon effects, telling her to say "a-ootho be-Allah" - Arabic words which mean to ask God to prevent you from something evil.
To tell the truth, Sir, I was very curious about this ... I mean the idea of the effect of the full-moon on humans, and how could a man - over 1400 years ago - warn us of this - long before we know the information of the negative effects of this mysterious phenomenon.
Sir, I will wait for your comment on this note, please I would like to share comments on this issue, because I intend to include this relation in some essay.
Finally, I hope you reply as soon as possible.
PS: I`m a second language speaker, so please excuse my weak English !
Thank You, F.I.M
Fri, 12 Oct 2001 18:10:30 +0100 To: Justin Gagne <gagne_jp***gt;
Hello Justin, great questions / hypotheses.
First - as you explained:-
Black Hole promoters (math theory folk) claimed that a dense body would collapse - presumably symmetrically (i.e. - perfectly evenly balanced) - to a point where 'infinite' gravity [caused by `infinite' mass/density] could create :-
a) a singularity - a break in 'space-time' link-1 - normally posited as occurring at "start./ end of a universe"; [ but our universe is not link-2 going to end- Ed. ]
b) an 'event horizon' (prison wall) capable of even holding back 'light' (e.m.r), which they obviously thought of as a discrete, forward-traveling phenomenon or thing.
Those are the two defining characteristics of a putative (claimed) "black hole" - from "Brief History of Time"
UEF theory (firstly) says - at radiation link-3 - that electromagnetic radiation ('light') is not a discrete forward-traveling thing, i.e. - that e.m.r obeys rules link-4 [which] conventional physics didn't know about when 'black hole theory' was dreamed-up.
UEF theory also says - at jets link-5 - that all bodies of mass are unsymmetrical and must therefore collapse unsymmetrically. That means - as with the ice-dancer link-6 - any collapsing body will spin, at increasing rate proportional to mass/density & speed of collapse.
[ This is known as 'conservation of angular momentum'. Note:- Scientists use opaque phrases like "conservation of ..." when they think they know what's happening, but not link-7 how or why! ]
At a certain point link-8 that rotating body physically 'jets' along the axial line - jets emerging at the poles - due to UEF pressure breaking through the shield of the equatorial plane (max. spinning mass).
[Nb - see previous reply below, to "Uncle Greg's" educational pages of San José]
Second - your hypothesis. You've highlited a mystery point where no-one knows what might happen.
I.e. what if matter could collapse (or re-collapse as you theorize) with a speed and density greater than 'jetting' phenomena could react to?
Would a 'singularity' result?
What is the evidence?
We do not find any evidence link-9 of black holes (either 'singularities' or 'event horizons') anyplace in the universe -
- although folk link-10 keep pointing at neutron stars / galactic cores, shouting "Black Hole!"
We do find jets everywhere in the universe -
- in terrestrial thunderclouds link-11 - (low-level) at poles of Moon and Earth link-12 - ordinary stars' poles - poles of neutron stars link-13 and of some spinning galactic cores. link-14. [Ed. - try web search for "jets" "stellar" & "galactic"]
Conclusion? It doesn't seem likely, to me, that 'singularities' with 'event horizons' (as defined above) can exist in our link-15 universe.
PS re your PS - think of Einstein as a great theorist and a very wise man (he once said - "Where mathematics is talking about reality - it is not accurate; where mathematics is accurate - it is not talking about reality") but he was thinking at a time when physics believed in 'magic forces' link-16 - and many scientists still link-17 do.
[Later note: when Einstein was (first) working folk thought of only 3 possible `universes' :-
1) Euclidean - flat, infinite 2) Riemannian (Einstein's) - spherical, finite 3) Lobachevskian - pseudo-spherical, infinite. All these were static universes. Only later did Willem de Sitter come up with an expanding universe that fit both the field equations and (known) facts. However, using Einstein's own equations it could be shown that, if any universe did expand (or contract) it would do so for ever (only now link-18 being slowly recognized by blind science).
Much later Bondi, Gold & Hoyle worked out that matter - hydrogen bits - could be regenerating thru the universe, giving `continuous creation' (see creation), which ironically is now getting agreement from latest early-universe data, showing `earliest' galaxies almost same as today's.]
There's a fine, well-referenced critique of the various "Relativity Theories" - yup, more than two - at Tom link Van Flandern's `Speed of Gravity' page link-19 - I think you'll agree it deserves downloading - and several coffees / teas during reading.
Cheers Ray D.
From: "Justin Gagne" <gagne_jp***> To: science at perceptions Subject: another theory on black holes Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 20:26:31 -0400
Hi my name is Justin Gagne, I am 14 and in the 10th. grade. I have been in to astronomy. I live in the US, in the state of GA(*). Now let me get to the point
Before reading your UEF Theory, I was a strong believer in black holes. I was very amused when I read your theory, and I found it very controversy. I didn't really know what to think, but I couldn't seem to let go of the ideas of black holes, but I couldn't seem to let go of the UEF stand point of view. So I started coming up with my own theory, and here it is.
For a long time I believed the normal idea on how a black hole is formed, [a very dense star such as a neutron star collapses, and under its own gravitational weight creating an object so great and dense that its escape velocity is greater than the speed of light]. But then one day I stumbled across a theory called the UEF theory, this theory states that an object such as a neutron star is so dense that it will rotate at extreme speeds, the denser the star, the faster it rotates, this high speed rotation will cause an axis breakdown, causing the star to re disperse.
Now that we have established those two theories let establish mine. I believe that if a neutron star collapses it will then have an axis break down and re disperse, but if a star is dense enough to do that then even after it collapse its particles will still be dense enough to draw them back together. During the re dispersing the star will no doubt have explosions which turned some of the matter into plasma and gas, so when it all gets drawn back together once again it will be able to collapse even more than the first time because a good amount of the matter is now plasma instead of solid. So then the gravity of the matter takes over and once it starts collapsing it doesn't stop, creating a black hole.
I know it's short and unprofessional, and I hope up didn't laugh to hard when you my "theory", and I hope you will think about it and then give me your true feelings on it sparing mine. Please E-mail me back in your convenience.
Thank you for your time.
p.s. I would also like your view on the theory of relativity(mainly the general theory) thanx.
[GA = State of Georgia, (in 'the beautiful South') - Ed. ]
Subject: Spinning Top Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2001 18:19:37 +0100 To:Uncle Greg <gregman2***>
FIRST your direct question. Let's check the UEF physics at 'jets'
We already know that a large mass, a neutron star say, will accelerate its rotation - if matter is incoming - until it reaches a speed where the plane of the equator is an almost perfect 'UEF shield' (holding back N & S incoming elements of all-round UEF pressure (see 'radiation')
BUT at the same time the axial line - although [maybe] only at thickness of about one proton - is presenting a minimum resistance to UEF pressure [axial line has ZERO angular momentum].
RESULT? Breakdown of the 'shield' around that axial line's one-proton thickness; ripping away the surrounding matter, which emerges from the poles in axial 'jets' at relativistic (maybe even f-t-l ?) speeds.
[It is unclear att if breakdown is caused by precession forcing the axial line (of minimum resistance) to rhythmically 'overlap' the surrounding maximum-shielded mass - which would explain 'pulses' in jets, or if it is simply a normal consequence of such contrasting pressures existing only half-a-proton away from each other. Since all rotating bodies possess some degree of precession the question is probably only academic (for the time being anyway)]
We see - from evidence of atmospheric 'jets' etc - that smaller masses also produce axial jets, needing only to be accelerated to the necessary rotation speed to produce the same UEF shielding and consequent breakdown.
The mathematical relationship / formula which describes the effect for all masses is fairly easy to obtain: we can measure the rotation speed(s) at which known large masses - neutron stars (and even galactic centers) - produce material jets; and we can also measure the rotation speeds at which relatively small masses produce their jets: atmospheric jets.
[Ie. the vortex of ions (+ electrons etc) within a big thunder-cloud at the discharge point of a lightning strike. The breakdown produces only one visible jet - upward or Northbound - probably because the downward jet is hidden or subsumed within the lightning strike event]
So we can produce a sliding-scale (mass / rotation speed) which will give us the breakdown or 'jetting' speeds for all masses.
Your Spinning-Top, although fairly low down the mass scale, would surely 'jet' - distributing its matter into the surrounding universe - at a speed much lower than light's.
SECOND - you've already seen a hint that something does move faster than light: direct UEF.
We know, from radiation#emitted, that light / electromagnetic radiation is only a reverse-pulse in the incoming UEF.
[Which is why the maths fooled Einstein and his successors that no energy or information could move at faster-than-light speed]
But now we see that direct UEF is moving at a much higher speed. [Which shows how some mystery jets can appear to be and probably are f-t-l] So if we modulate direct UEF we have f-t-l communication, in a rigidly tight beam.
And if we can create a total (or near-total) UEF shield we have f-t-l propulsion - and maybe f-t-l travel.
Thanks for the question(s), best regards
Uncle Greg <gregman2***> Tuesday, July 31, 2001, 06:15:51 (gmt)
Ed's note: in "up-date page", and we're assuming it was maybe provoked by the Spinning-Top at precess
Question: Can anyone explain in detail (or suggest a site) what would occur if a Spinning Top were to accelerate its rate to that of light speed? Thanks in advance. G-man
San Jose, California, United States - Tuesday, July 31, 2001, 06:15:51 (gmt)
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 20:12:10 +0100
1 - You probably know that `Perceptions' UEF Index contains pages describing diverse individual effects that can be observed - or forecast - due to the UEF (field or force). There is a reason for that spread.
Some of these effects are 'serious' in power terms and in terms of outcomes for organic life, and some could produce catastrophic results if the experiments were wrongly/badly handled.
2 - From the server logs you could see that academic, corporate and government researchers have for quite a while been downloading all UEF pages, to accumulate all information.
3 - Hopefully you could get these facts from UEF pages:-
UEF interacts with protonic matter, therefore increasing the density of test material increases the observable UEF effect.
Rotation of a body increases its 'information density' - the effective density reacting with UEF - therefore rotation of the material further increases the observable UEF effect.
A rotating mass (of sufficient density) produces a rotating magnetic field - therefore a powerful rotating magnetic field will produce similar UEF effects to those produced by a (large, dense) rotating mass.
Hope all that didn't wear you out before you got to the useful bit - whichever that was.
YES - we did give Carol H more info in a PS, plus a contact for NESTA, which has the power to restrict our freedom to impart information. That's because we are ruled by English law - & NESTA is English gov't `science overlord bureaucrat'
Subject: Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 09:14:24 -0500 From: "Carol H" <netsuccess***>
would like to build a uef device but not enough info.
would like to have more info on uef shield if possible.
And we meant every word. If all else fails we're getting ready to publish the whole sorry story of academic cowardice, bureaucratic ignorance (and arrogance) and political suppression behind the scenes in the UK (and some in Europe and the USA).
Glimpses - already published - at medical and greatest & previous
Although we're happy to be able to say that our three greatest heroes in the world of science and academia have been welcoming and responsive.
(In addition they proved to be warm and likeable people.)
Subject: Help Cao Jungfeng Date:Thu, 08 Mar 2001 18:24:23 +0000
To: Cao junfeng <coldpr***>
Your obvious frustration is the same as ours.
1 - We are addressing urgent messages to ask the British authorities to help carry out the (relatively simple) proofs of the Theory which your outline seems to resemble, as do some thoughts from other correspondents - notably in the USA.
2 - Unfortunately while the dead hand of (scared?) professionals keeps hold of 'authorized' science we are otherwise limited to asking readers to help with this campaign.
SO - anyone reading this who is in academia or in government, please check out:
radiation.html#ary - fertility.html#caution - abolish.html - www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp - www.coldpressure.com.cn
and decide for yourself.
Promise: The first person or org. to impartially examine this question will go down in history as a genius! It's too late to erase or ignore this breakthrough - but we just want to see who will be the first intelligent person or org. to grab it.
For Cao Jungfeng: patience.
Subject: cold stress - Cao junfeng Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2001 09:24:36 +0800
From: Cao junfeng <coldpr*** >
Dear [editor]: How are you? I need you[r] help
ShenYang City, China.
Subject:your message Date:Wed, 07 Mar 2001 13:12:57 +0000 To: "Junfeng, Cao" <coldpr***>
Hello friend, hope you're well.
Your request - for sponsorship to the science establishment - meets a block.
Checking struggle.html outlines the problem. At this time most mainstream science figures are defending careers and reputations built on obsolete paradigms and worn-out, non-functional 'theories.'
Any individual fighting for reason and progress is denied and stifled by non logical behavior imposed on Universities and science publications by an 'anti progress' coalition of repressive education authorities, defensive clapped out professors and ignorant publishers. History tells us this is 'normal.'
`Perceptions' fights on a wide front for knowledge and truth. This makes us a target for officials hiding panicky highly placed abusers in our own country.
We do want to help everyone pushing for truth. What we don't want - and would refuse - is power.
We will publish your insights and truths - [but] Establishments will not welcome you as a result.
Subject: cold stress Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 18:41:00 +0800 From:Cao_junfeng<coldpr***>
SLIGHTLY CORRECTED EXTRACT
Would you please introduce my article "The Cold Stress" to the physicist at the physical conference It will be better if possible to publish it in the journals Thanks a lot
Shenyang city. China
Subject: Reply to second message/s Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 19:15:24 +0000 To: Cao junfeng <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I hope you and yours are well and happy. This period (December 22 to January 2) is a time when communications (except direct email system) are slow or absent in Europe and the USA, due to the holidays taken by many people.
The first thing I should do is congratulate you on your scientific conclusions and your perceptions. From initial readings of your page www.coldpressure.com.cn it seems that you have arrived at the conclusion that there is ONE force which is the prime cause of all inertial phenomena, including gravity; and that this force also gives the nuclear / atomic / molecular bonding
You are probably aware that it is very difficult to convince general or specialist scientists of the truth of these conclusions, for most scientists only accept that which is already written in text books - which, as you and I know, is incomplete and erroneous.
Thus far your Cold Quantum / Cold Pressure agrees with UEF theory (earlier -1995/6 - called CBGR theory).
My comprehension of your page www.coldpressure.com.cn is limited, possibly by my failure to completely grasp all of the concepts you have outlined.
So for the present I suggest we let a world readership (of the UEF pages and now your Cold Quantum page) look at both outlines and assess them.
It could speed up the process if you suggested some experiments that might confirm certain conclusions - as at the UEF experiments.
And, as I have found out in recent years, it sometime helps to re-phrase/write difficult explanations in order to be able to convey meaning - which to you or [me] might seem clear but which remain opaque to general readers without a change of perception or viewpoint.
Although this reply is still incomplete I hope it meets with your approval.
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 14:35:40 +0000 To: Cao junfeng <email@example.com>
I hope you are in good health. I was very interested to read your page www.coldpressure.com.cn
With your permission, in order to answer your email promptly I'll give a first impression and some initial conclusions. These are tentative and will probably be firmed up later.
Allowing for our different approaches and nomenclatures (describing concepts, processes and 'things'), here are some likenesses or equivalents (your "Cold Quantum" on left / "UEF" on right
"Cold" = "sub-material particle or force" / "UEF"
"Cold quantum" = "UEF"
"Hot quantum" = "biased UEF reaction, around protonic matter" otherwise "electron energy" otherwise "heat"
"Electron always go with particle, it seems they are good friend" = "The electron is a 'reaction pattern' in UEF intensity. ..has a polarity...it is incomplete compared to a photon, and biased in space-time...under 'normal' conditions it is more - or less - attached to its parent body: the nucleonic mass consisting of at least one proton"
"all this secondary particles were given a name , some called meson, some called quark, I don't think this conclusion is reasonable, space is unlimited, how can a few secondary particle can be composed as particles" = "An atom cannot be said to be 'made up of' protons and neutrons, just as protons cannot be said to be 'made up of' "quarks"...
"cold quantum swirl pool also pushes the turning movement of Sun and solar system, swirl pool is produced from gathered force" = "the cloud begins to collapse by reason of mutual 'gravitational attraction' - [UEF shielding]...if you remember...'conservation of angular momentum' & 'Coriolis force' etc ... an asymmetric collapsing mass must begin to rotate around an axis pointing to greatest 'gravitational pull'"
However, there seem to be difficulties (finding total equivalence between the two theories), possibly due to some basic assumptions / 'simplifications' that either or both of us have made.
One of these is your imaginative use of the word "Cold". While this is a good description of the sub-material nature of the basic particle or force (ie. necessarily lacking any "electron reaction" or "heat"), it may be that this could confuse people. On the other hand it may be necessary - if we can prevail upon people to keep that 'special use' (of the word "cold") in mind.
Other simplifications or concepts (in "Cold Quantum") might be more difficult.
Actually, it might be a good idea to stop here and let other people read your "Cold Quantum" page and then make their assessments / transpositions w.r.t. UEF theory. [& at linked pages]
These emails will (hopefully) be posted on the Science Q&A page, this to allow readers a chance to refer to the material.
Thank you for your email and I hope to make a better and more complete answer in due course.
[name & UK address]
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 15:07:07 +0800 From: Cao junfeng <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I hope you are well.
Please read my cold pressure theory web page www.coldpressure.com.cn
please feel free to make your suggestions
I hope you enjoy and support my viewpoint
Shenyang city. China
Subject: re your last message Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2000 11:01:08 +0100 From: \"Perceptions\" Editor ;editor at perceptions.couk.com To: Susan Steinberg <email@example.com>
CC: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
Hi Susan, As we are adding a fairly urgent "Caution Note" to a page we recommended to you it's only right to let you know.
[We are also informing the BBC as it concerns "medical advice" offered by a BBC program which may be deceptive or even dangerous]
1 - We do _not_ offer medical advice
2 - However, analysis of available evidence has forced us to add a "Women - WARNING" link to several pages - these pointing to:- fertility.html#caution
3 - We believe that further evidence is available but has been 'overlooked' or perhaps even played down in the interests of big-business.
4 - In terms of numbers affected this concerns mostly North America and western Europe, but for _any_ mother-to-be this could be vital information.
See timing & record
Thinkers of all ages send welcome (&controversial) comments and suggestions. Latest batch is from C. H., a student in Nova Scotia who has some radical science ideas.
We'll normally print all your stuff - BUT - WE HAVEN'T TIME FOR REWRITING so here's an extract from last chat with Chad :-
how about you write a SHORT, CLEAR letter to science at perceptions.couk.com [you could treat this like a sort of TEST of concentration - Right ? ]
[ and do a spell-check on it first OK? . . . single-handed for almost all things here . . . don't get the time to rewrite anything extensive. [ SHORT means whatever you want, but more than 4 or 5 long paragraphs is likely to look unreadable and will be cut ]
That booklet of Feynman's thinking is really called "SIX NOT-SO-EASY PIECES" (by Richard P Feynman ) and the ISBN of the UK paperback is 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 (I think) There's an intro by Roger Penrose whose own book - "The Emperor's New Mind" is fantastic, goes into _all_ the big questions, including Relativity, Quantum, and the computer and artificial intelligence ones.
Take it easy - keep thinking
Subject: "exchanging links on . . " Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 20:15:05 +0100
Hello Mike, thanks for the message and kind thoughts.
Go ahead with any links you want. I'll put a cut-down of your message in the sci-mail-page
When you see the address ¬ you'll know why the mail pack, a nice suggestion, is probably not applicable in this case. [ Anyway, this is a one-horse operation / he's short of oats / I'm the horse. ]
Best wishes to both companies.
Subject: I am writing to see if you might be interested in exchanging links on our web sites. Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 13:33:26-0700 From: "Mike Ciaccio-President-Shopforacomputer.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I am writing to see if you might be interested in exchanging links on our web sites.
www.Chronogram.com is portal for the cultural life of New York's Hudson Valley. Our site receives about 25 thousand visitors per month. We have recently begun assembling a link directory to make our site more comprehensive, and we would be happy to include your web site's link on our page.
Please let me know if this is something that may interest you. In addition, our paper magazine, Chronogram, is distributed free throughout Ulster and Dutchess counties to over 500 locations. We will be happy to send you a media kit in case you may be interested in advertising your business.
I look forward to your response.
Michael A. Ciaccio
Vice President of International Marketing
Subject: Invitation for Listing of URL Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:39:24 +0000 From:Editor-\"Perceptions\" editor perceptions.couk.com To:email@example.com
Hello Ms Steinberg
thanks for the message re "sensor.html".
As you are concerned with human biology you might also be interested in
which, although it may seem controversial, is a serious, documented and referenced examination of a factor affecting "fertility". The factor affects all cellular activity.
Alhough the page does not purport to give medical advice there is information there that will increase (or decrease) conception rates if followed intelligently.
Anyway feel free to link to any pages that you honestly feel will interest - or help - your readers.
Subject: Invitation for Listing of URL Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 08:04:13 -0500 From:"Research Department" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: editor perceptions.couk.com
I'm Susan Steinberg, editor of Efilesystem.Com an Alternative Medicine Directory. Currently we are preparing our listing for Radiesthesia.
In my research for the above topic, I've come across your site 'To design a "Sensor".' with URL http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/sensor.html. Your site in my opinion is relevant to the topic Radiesthesia.
I would like to invite your site to be listed in our directory by submitting your site at www.efilesystem.com/welcome_submit.htm ...
If you believe that Radiesthesia is not the proper category, we have over 150 topics to choose from. You could see the entire selection at www.efilesystem.com/altermed.htm.
This is only a once a year invitation...
If you want us to permanently remove your URL and Email in our record 'Do Nothing'. You would not hear from me again.
Thank you for your cooperation, I look forward to seeing your site listed under Radiesthesia.
About that "work ethic": - [I] hold the idea that is is better to do a good window-clean or house-clean (and we know about these things), or to make a good carving or brickwork - than is delivering sterile untruthful lectures, or writing derivative (and fallacious) text-books. Only working well makes the work worth doing.
Ie - a creative janitor is more truly admirable than a non-creative scientist
Jan 2001 - 'interrupt' provoked by a web commentator's opinion - that the No Black Holes page is "aggressive"
We say that all elites (priesthoods) follow a progression:-
distinction - privilege - arrogance - incompetence - charlatanry - worse
This can be seen from the true history of science - where we see all establishments have clung to belief in unverifiable rubbish -
like "turtle Earth" - "the humors" - "central Earth" - "phlogiston" - "Darwinism" - big Crunch - quantum "magic exchanges"
Each innovator is derided and abused by the elite's mouthpieces, and may be tortured and killed for his/her `heresy'. But eventually public opinion forces a stupid elite to accept the new IDEA.
Note - do we have to apologize for that `aggression' again?
Hello Karoly Viragh
Thanks for that. Your stated principles are perfect. I agree with you that Science itself - the testing of the Universe - is above reproach.
Science is merely asking clear questions and accepting only 'truthful' - verifiable - answers.
[Illustrations of that at answers001.html#method - quoted in a separate discussion on human evolution.]
What follows is going to be a sort of "form letter" response - with a PS to you.
We always have a problem with the hierarchies of "scientists and science academics" that form the science establishment.
The science establishment (perhaps unconsciously) actually suppresses progress in science.
That seems a radical or even emotive thing to say but it is true now and has always been true - we can think of many true scientists whose work was suppressed, sometimes by execution as with Giordano Bruno, mostly by denigration and conformist pressure. Very many of the suppressed scientists were women, with much of their innovative work still not fully acknowledged [check greatest]
To think clearly on almost any scientific subject it is necessary to disbelieve all the written works on that subject - retaining only the indisputable facts (which are sometimes hard to obtain as most of the great 'names' of the last half century or so are inclined to ignore or even distort or hide uncomfortable facts).
Probably 75% of science text book conceptual content is fallacious, with most of the published conclusions on electromagnetism and the spectrum, inertia and momentum, mass and gravity - in fact all opinions on "the Forces" - being incorrect.
A current example of the 'suppression' of facts can be seen at by Tom Van Flandern's "speed of gravity".
More sweepingly perhaps UEFindex.html overviews the complete new concept, one that the science establishment is presently afraid to contemplate. It covers several discrete subjects but footnotes3.html should give a quick appreciation of the whole.
Your local/national science establishment will be nervous about this. You could tell them that NASA has been forced to implicitly accept the theory or its effects - at footnotes2.html#2 - although no individual NASA scientist can publicly admit that just yet.
(But I honestly wouldn't recommend you to do that - if you still have grades to get or tenure to earn or keep)
[However an observer might be amused/amazed to see the number of government, nasa, corporate, college (university) and military labs who are surreptitiously looking at the UEF theory.
PS to Karoly: Your mail, and other input from friends only a few years senior to you makes me feel that clearer thinking will soon prevail
Please continue examining and criticising the step-by-step logic of all theoretical stuff like UEF theory. It is actually quite rare to find dispassionate factual criticism on these seemingly loaded subjects.
But, as you imply, a real scientist doesn't accept anything unproven - not even her/his own perceptions. By the way even Feynman shaded the facts a little in order to make a better presentation for his students - I think he was a showman at heart.
PPS You might be surprised, you would probably get higher marks than me in an exam or test at this moment.
PPPS I've just been to your website. It's good and original - but don't expect all the older generation to really like it. They sometimes twist the "work-ethic" to say you must spend a lot of your time doing boring repetitive and useless stuff rather than spending all of your time doing hard, challenging, useful stuff
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 12:09:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Karoly Viragh <kviragh***>
I'm a high school senior interested in science and research. I was reading your objections to science that "scientists know some WHATs, a few WHEREs - but no real WHYs, WHENs, HOWs." I agree that science knows very few whys, but does anyone else know the answer to the these tormenting questions? The answer is no, as far as I know. It looks to me though that you are trying to disparage science, making it look ludicrous. The point is that science does not claim to know the answer to ALL the question, but it gives a systematic, self-correcting, testable method to look for the answer. We do not know what makes the pendulum swing, we do not know what mass really is, but how would you approach these problems if not by the scientific method. Would you state postulates and found a new religion based on that?
Please excuse my sardonic style, I do not mean anything personal. I probably know less than you do, but I'm eager to learn, so please feel free to critique my comments.
Thank you for your time.
Cheers, thanks for that.
Do you have "The Firmament" on the web? I'm looking at evidence from clear minded people - yourself is one, hopefully, and Tom Van Flandern's "speed_of_gravity" is another.
You're definitely right about modern physics. It has become a kind of priesthood, a hierarchical system where striving acolytes have to produce work that will get the approval - and marks - from a tired and confused `establishment' in the persons of their tutors, department heads and physics-ignorant politicians.
But, as you say, that establishment does not rest on any factual base, but on a mishmash of confused concepts coming from fifty or eighty years ago when 'physicists' were using ouija boards (only figuratively - but yes you're definitely right again about Einstein).
There are funny signs that NASA and others are actually aware of our findings/thoughts and are pragmatically using 'real' formulas (faster than light gravity - 'focussed' gravity - variable inertia/momentum etc.) while publicly paying lip service to the establishment.
I'll try to attach a couple of emails that seem to confirm this. Yup, that looks ok - the file is two recent emails in one text file called nasanotes.txt
[NOTE: regarding that reference to the establishment - the BBC (UK) recently broadcast a science statement on UK radio (R4) :- that "gravity travels only at the speed of light."
That was the broadcast answer to a student or interested youngster responding to BBC's science year "Ask a Science Question" program.
The BBC 'scientist' obviously didn't know or check real facts - see van Flandern's proof above. The BBC just chose to go along with the party line. And another generation gets misinformed.]
Subject:UEF Date:Thu, 4 Nov 1999 13:37:43 EST
Your theory is pretty close to the one I have come up with.
It is a comfort to know that there are others out there that recognize a snow job when they see it (modern physics). It is my opinion that Einstein was way off base, and todays theories seem almost designed to work without a foundation in understanding.
I call my theory the Firmament.
November 16, 1996, from Arthur C Clarke CBE, Colombo, Sri Lanka. (now Sir Arthur)
Ray - P.T.O!
[ this was a handwritten addition to a printed letter ]
As Bohr is supposed to have said to another scientist - "We all agree that your theory is crazy - but is it crazy enough to be true?"
All good wishes
Arthur C Clarke
16 Nov '96
First "Q&A" featured above was not a response to the UEF Theory as you now see it, but to an early version. The writer - a world class author / scientist - showed great tolerance of its scrappy presentation and confused language and, with his reply, proved his scientific curiosity and open-mindedness remained superior.
|Arthur C Clarke died March 2008|