Subject: celestial mechanics Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 00:46:08 -0700 From: "Bill Clark" <btubill***>
I am trying to get some comments on my hoped-for PhD dissertation here at the University of Texas at Austin, called "The Theory of F and G Functions." Everything is on my web site at home.austin.rr.com/cmlab/home.html
* summary of the Two Body Problem for those who need brushing up on the basics
* this textbook shows a series of subtle "flaws" in current theory, focusing on the f- and g-functions which are also solutions to the 2BP
* a transformation into the complex plane of the 2PB that results in three forces; the other two assumed to be the f- and g-forces
* a numerical study of the planets in our Solar System that gives a physical structure, and point of origin of these forces
* a computer model of the Earth to Mars trajectory that gives further support, showing these forces have physical wavefronts that combine in a typical "shock wave"
* physical evidence of these forces on the surface of Mars, near the point of origin of one of these forces, in the so-called "water wash" patterns
* this force is proposed to have played a role in the high failure rate of missions to Mars; nine of eleven have failed since the space age began
* another study of the Solar System results in an actual measurement of the amplitude and wavelength of these f- and g-waves (i.e. near Mars' orbit and the Sun)
* analytical support, in that the equation for the waves is a solution to the Regularized 3BP of Celestial Mechanics
I hope you have a chance to visit.
Subject: re: "Energy and economics" Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:41:41 +0100 To: <breakerbay***>
Yes, have seen the "Hubble Sprinkler" + some others like it, and you're right it does fit into the range expected.
And the range - of sizes, speeds & compositions is very wide. Smallest (so far) is a quite fast one - the `blue jet' at vortex of origin of large lightning strike.
Least (so far) is the invisible `thrust' from any rotating object (cause of precession) - see details for the Moon at jets.html#level
Largest/fastest (so far) is giant intergalactic jet reaching out from many huge collapsing/spinning galactic cores (problematic for blind science 'cos some give "f.t.l" readings).
You might be interested in another query [below - ed] re tectonic / shielding effects of planetary alignments.
Subject: Mother Earth Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 17:01:54 +0100 To: Richard Montanari <montanari***>
Hello Dr Montanari,
Yes, like you was fascinated by cleverness of the "Modest Proposal" (journey to center of the Earth). But we lack hard knowledge of reaction of rock strata to injection of hundreds of tons of molten iron (plus probe) so can't speculate on feasibility.
And must admit that checking alignments of Earth-Moon with nearing/departing Venus/Mars/Jupiter is difficult, almost impossible to do with any uniformity.
And checking alignment of Sun with more than one planet (for sunspots etc) is also difficult [see *later].
If other readers would like to check search.html for "Jets" or "Spinning Top Effect" they should find that "cause of precession" query is dealt with at precess.html and uef/jets.html but you might be interested in another of today's answers re "intergalactic jets" etc which should be available [above - ed]
Yes, you're right - jets and precession have a (simple) common cause.
*later - use HomePlanet to select candidate alignments. then run accurate checks with Prof. Aldo Vitagliano's SOLEX (now we just have to find out how - in manual `solex85.rtf' in docs folder)
Subject: Re: "Energy and economics" Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 23:36:38 +1200 From: "breakerbay" <breakerbay***>To:
Hope you are enjoying some summerish weather..
Have you seen this latest from Hubble?
[[ed. - check www.space.com for "Hubble Images" & "Sprinkler"]]
UEF, of course, explains most of it without trouble, except that the speed of 4m kph seems way slower than your prediction of 'possibly FTL'? Also, what about the lumpy bits?
Subject: Shielding and mother Earth Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 08:56:16 +0200 From: "Richard Montanari" <montanarir***>
Thanks for your prompt reply.... As a fully employed Public Health Specialist with an International Organization in the Balkans I pursue certain interests as an hobby and time is scarce, but the interest is there and I do appreciate getting a feed back from your desk. I am even tempted to ask for more. Here we go. And thanks in advance.
1) Black matter was again on the Economist last month. And apparently it behaves surprisingly like normal matter. So as long as we can tell its location it should be possible to predict how it behaves and the kind of interaction to expect with "normal" matter. That is in a physical world were we agree on the type of forces that are at work. But do we?
Startling revelation that a neutron is a shielded proton. Softer it is and bigger as well. And if shielding is somehow disrupted may a neutron change in a proton again? Or would they swap given a chance? Would that have anything to do with the sudden inversion of earth's magnetic poles? And what about tectonic movements and earth crust displacement? What is it that would get softer or less dense in this case? Is it matter in the mantel, or is it matter deeper past the discontinuity down deep inside the core of our planet? How about a:
Quote" JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF THE EARTH
An entire government agency is devoted to space exploration, "but no comparable exploratory effort has been directed towards the Earth's interior, where equally fascinating scientific issues are waiting to be investigated," writes physicist David J. Stevenson.
So in an imaginative article published in Nature magazine May 15, he sketches out a proposal to send a probe into the Earth's core. Up to now, the deepest drill hole has extended 12 kilometers down on the Kola Peninsula in Russia. But Stevenson wants to go all the way.
The annotated text of "A Modest Proposal: Mission to Earth's Core" by David J. Stevenson may be found here: coremission/
The annotations include one small error regarding the technology of space nuclear power. "Unquote from Secrecy News.
2) I have appreciated your fertility comments and tectonic plates movements [long quote from footnotes - ed]
And I have dowloaded "Home Planet" sometime ago. The problem with the Orrery is that it lacks three dimensional images and for a non mathematical mind the like of me, it is difficult to visualize the positions, interplay and dinamics of planet masses and corresponding shielding effects. Would you mind taking your comments past 18 Feb 2003? We are in June 2003 now and I would gladly get an update from you.
And 3) Can shielding effects add up in time? In other words can matter store or memorize shielding effects? Could precession in itself a manifestation of UEF, influence long term shielding effects on specific tectonic plates, e.g. Antartctica? Can we talk of regular versus irregular shielding?
Well I guess this is already more than what I should ask.
Very best regards
Subject: "Energy and quakes" Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 15:17:25 +0100 To: "breakerbay" <breakerbay***>
Negative on Jupiter's gaseous envelope. Was short of space so used `homogeneous' to indicate galactic scale. But the effect does apply to galactic cores etc.
[Even on smaller scales of Jupiter's and Earth's central cores - of homogeneous metal - the very center does have lesser nuclear (UEF) compression; although, due to physical pressure the _density_ (packing of material) is great]
There's reference to that effect's thresholds at footnotes, graveffect and topology and, coincidentally there's an update (re Jupiter's polar emission) at verified
Right, on that orrery (always get too many r's in there), for precise alignment check in both planes
I.e. do easy alignment check from given view (vertical - looking down Solar N-S axis), then turn system sideways and check again (aligning thru center of Sun, &/or along Earth-Moon axis) in horizontal plane.
(It's called the `ecliptic' - when applied w.r.t Earth and its view of System - but you probably knew that)
Re: trouble-spots - big computer programs (possibly? being tried at some US uni's and by USGS) will be able to say precisely where the plane of greatest UEF de-compression slices thru the Earth, say at eclipses (or thru the Sun at significant planetary alignments - see footnotes).
Even so, you still need the local stress figure (from cycle history / from sensitive geo-readings & sats.) to give accurate-ish quake predictions.
Give us ten or twenty (50?) years?
That's about all, except hoping you can trawl for new material by doing date-sorted searches - will try to look at / improve that `search perceptions' page.
NEW try SOLEX for forecasting - ed.
Subject: Re: "Energy and quakes" Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 22:59:09 +1200 From: "breakerbay" <breakerbay***>
Are you saying that Jupiter will be denser at its surface? We were told that the surface was 20,000km of liquid H, then liquid metallic H (generating the large magnetic fields) and a central core of H2O, Ammonia and molten 'rock' which seemed to be quite reasonable. But I dont see that aligning with your statement, or do I have that wrong?
I would have to say that being kind to the lecturers was a consequence of not finding your site until researching some of the later assignments rather than letting them off easily.
A couple more things.
Do you have a "daily" email sent to the world? How do I follow the threads of your most recent work?
The orrery takes a bit of work to get doing its thing, but it is certainly a very clever bit of software. Is there an easy way to find where we might have UEF shadows/edges that might be potential tectonic trouble spots?
As I say to many - the most interesting site on the web (even tho I read more economic stuff, that being my work)
Subject: "Energy and quakes" Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 21:15:37 +0100 To: breakerbay <breakerbay***>
Thanks, and you're kind not to pummel the lecturers, they're stuck in a minefield of professional acceptability. Actually have a faint sympathy for `establishment' (either science or other disciplines). Mostly they've achieved rank by memorizing "text book rules" and here we are saying the text books are wrong - so they feel threatened with looking very silly or worse. No-win situation so they tend to dig-in and deny everything. That's the historical attitude of all establishments.
Yes that "historical astronomy" detective work can be interesting.
Regarding your two queries, these were secondary or even tertiary (i.e. somewhat `iffy') conclusions demanded mainly because UEF theory, as a body, pointed in those directions.
1) Dark matter - a large diffuse body (of homogeneous matter) will actually be less dense in central region, more dense towards the rim. That's purely due to its interaction with UEF. This solves some of establishments' problems (though there are striking `threshold' differences in this effect for larger or smaller bodies than galaxies). Then we have to look at "time" and its "arrow" - the matter / energy question. Accepting (some) of the big bang creation of matter leads us to think energy is decreasing and that matter must still be being created (and there are more complex - interlocking - reasons pushing same way).
2) Quake effects - this is where I feel really sorry for authorities. They've more reasons for denial here. They think they can't do much about quakes so best keep quiet and prevent "panic" [That's always put forward as strong excuse for secrecy]
In actual fact J H Nelson (for RCA) did pioneering work on planetary alignment / sunspots etc. way back in 1940 and yes, I know some US universities _are_ quietly working now, but don't have permission to say more, maybe you might do some judicious web searches using `tectonic' keywords.
Let's just say that the UEF shielding effects of mass alignments - like this recent N African quake probably caused by Earth/Moon lining up with approaching Mars - seem stronger than `gravitational' effects by orders of magnitude. We see this both in tectonic (quake/volcano) outcomes but also in human cellular outcomes (flight trauma/air rage/full moon/estrus), and it _is_ expected by UEF theory.
Meanwhile would recommend using orrery].
Subject: Dark matter and energy and earthquakes Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 23:34:00 +1200 From: "breakerbay" <breakerbay***>
The more I read of your theory, the more convinced I am of its correctness. Its simplicity and ability to answer so many long-outstanding anomolies convince me of its veracity. Mind you, I have to keep revisiting the site to take in the various points you make and the new things you are bringing to it from time to time. I have also recently been thru a course run by our local observatory. Of course, one topic was Black Holes. I didnt challenge it then as it wasnt the place perhaps.
The lecturers have an interest in using star data to answer various historical questions. Eg what was the star of bethlehem? - Answer a nova in 5BC and it pointed to New Bethlehem or Masada (because B is due S of Jerusalem!); was there a world great flood a la Noah?- No as Chinese mythology doesnt mention, therefore most likely candidate is the breaching of the Bosphorus by the Mediterranean into the Black Sea 'depression" and probably the site of Atlantis, and the Great pyramid sighter line points directly at the Dog star at the time of construction which allowing for precession (not explained except to compare to a top) points to a construction date of (my notes/recollection is incomplete unfortunately), so you can see they covered all sorts of aspects and came to some conclusions that on further research I found to be questionable. Anyway, I think they have a book in the pipeline....
Anyway, to get to the points:
The latest stuff I see in my astronomical reading is a real focus on dark matter and energy. It would seem that UEF answers the dark energy "problem" straight away. Dark matter is, in every sense, another "matter".
The latest seems to be that it is cold stars/near stars/ etc, but it seems to me that you are saying that UEF is continually "conceiving" matter, even in interplanetary space? Does that get around the "problem" of holding the galaxies together?
The other point that I would like some assistance of is in relation to earthquake effects.
I live in NZ, where we have many experts in the field. I asked one researcher as to whether there was any relationship between planetary alignment and quakes. He said that it had been investigated very thoroughly and that NO correspondence had been established. I recall finding in one of your comments that you felt bad about not warning the Turkish authorities that they were about to get hammered. Can you point me to any research/papers on this, or perhaps your own work.
I suppose this could be the "best" evidence of UEF for a lot of people. It could also be very useful for NZ where large parts of the country are under stress, being on the plate boundaries and in fact a major fault line runs thru this city of ours (Wellington).
and good luck in your battle with the establishment
SPECIAL REQUEST from GONG, whose paper you first saw in November 2002
(we'd help direct - but `Perceptions' is a real charity and therefore has no money at all)
Subject: Re: MOSCOW UNIVERSITY project. Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 18:45:19 +0800 From: "Gong" <bx_gong***> CC "Gong" <hdgbyi***>
Dear Perceptions readers:
I am a Chinese, my name is BingXin Gong, I am interest in scientific research.
I found that The Uncertainty Principle Is Untenable, and now I received the official invitation letter from the Physical Department of the BAUMAN MOSCOW STATE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, Russia fn.bmstu.ru/phys/nov/konf/pirt/participants.html
and the the official invitation letter from the Joint International Scientific Conference to be held at the Kazan University, Kazan, Russia http://www.ksu.ru/GeoN-Kazan-2003
There are the good chances for me to introduce that the The Uncertainty Principle Is Untenable. The Uncertainty Principle has let us far from truth. It will correct the people's wrong cognition, it will save the people's many time and money.
I hope to participate in these two conference [but] it needs about 4000 dollars to [get there to] participate in these two conference. But I am uptight now, please assist me if you can.
This would be a service to SCIENCE, thank you very much! I will repay you double dollars when my thing take a turn for the better, or I can repay you in other manner that you like.
Date: Wed, 09 April 2003
Hello Doctor Montanari,
Yes, think that dark matter halo symptom comes from UEF shielding, and have a tribute to Vera Rubin at "Greatest Discoveries of 20th Cent"
UEF's effects include the low-level effect Science calls `gravity' but others interact at higher levels. I.e. the neutron is really a shielded proton and, on a much larger scale, something similar happens to centers of planets and stars, that is, the core is of a form not yet classified by Science (because it is shielded and inaccessible - att.), and again - up another scale - matter at center of a [spiral] galaxy is necessarily less dense than matter out towards the rim.
The combining of these effects can bring about somewhat startling results, as was evident in the 1999 eclipse which however was forecast [here] to produce significant tectonic/earthquake movement.
The `gravitational' and shielding effects were at their strongest along the line of the eclipse shadow which moved through the Mediterranean, across Turkey and Eurasia to Taiwan.
[ While the gravitational effect only `pulls' slightly, UEF shielding produces nuclear and molecular `loosening' (and a cellular `speed-up') - see "1999 - 2003" note and details of the warnings sent but ignored.]
Richard, hopefully you & other readers can use the `lite' version of John Walker's "Home Planet" - a [free] soft-ware orrery - to make your personal predictions of earthquake or solar activity peaks.
It must be remembered that we can only predict UEF `triggers' of earthquakes. The other causative factor of accumulated stress must either be researched locally or perhaps inferred from known past cycles of activity in that area.
For tectonic events you're looking for [close] alignments of one or more planets with Earth and Sun, and [close] alignments of Earth/ Moon with approaching or departing Venus and/or Mars / Jupiter /Saturn.
For solar activity you're simply looking for alignments of planetary masses [2 or more] which will force `sunspots' to grow. Don't forget that an event on the Sun develops quite slowly and might then take a further two weeks to become visible to us - Sun's equator rotates once in about  days - see footnotes3.html#forecasts
Thanks for getting this all in one place for other readers.
Sorry, forgot - you can practise and validate your methods
Subject: UEF and Crazy Fritz Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2003 07:10:21 GMT From: "Richard Montanari"
I am a Medical Doctor researching gravity and earth crust displacement. I enjoy reading your web site and recently came across a National Geographic article on Galaxies (Feb 03) where Vera Rubin, Carnegie Inst. is quoted as saying "spiral galaxies have to be embedded in a halo of dark matter". This in order not to fall apart.
What if dark matter and UEF were to be one and the same? It is after all only a matter of perceptions. Is matter pulling or shielding?
Orrerry and Earthquakes. How about an update for this year? I am particularly concerned with the Katmandu valley.
Very best regards
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 18:06:02 EST From: FEerguy9***
"In one sentence, I am saying that a very, very advanced capacitor is possible, and would accommodate most of the energy problems we have today -- basically it would do the job that the energy function of oil now does."
Please respond by Email
or call at (248) 288-3459
Frank's Idea in full is at Readers' Ideas
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 03:48:33 -0800 (PST)
"Masked Frag" sent useful COMMENT - which included a reference to forecasting of solar activity. Here's the special note given there.
Anybody can do that forecasting - of earthquake/tectonic activity & even of solar activity by using an ORRERY - and by using hints in Footnotes3
remembering that UEF shielding is probably much more powerful than `gravitational attraction'
Subject: re: Richard Feynman Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003 15:04:53 +0000
Yes, also impressed by Feynman's fluent style, then - like you - noticed:
1) willingness to bend facts to fit `lesson-plan' (specially w.r.t photon ratios in diffract/reflect/transit experiments)
2) fitting math models (say `probability amplitudes') to results, then implying that model causes results; which would demand time-travel for photon superposition paths. [It's almost like saying that "4 × (1 - 1/3 + 1/5 - 1/7 + 1/9 etc per Leibnitz) causes a circle"?]
But, as you say, he mostly did admit ignorance when painfully obvious (as with "gravity"), and in some lectures implied that an unknown force-field might account for the (huge) gaps. Earlier Einstein admitted as much (today few `establishment scientists' seem willing to, although comprehending little more, or somewhat less, than Einstein or even Feynman).
Maybe RF's times demanded forceful lecturers - it could almost seem he was a `one-trick showman' rather than a flexible analyzer.
Looking forward to seeing your stuff, regards
Subject: : Richard Feynman Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 11:38:26 -0700 From: "Michael Hernan" scimike***
I saw a reference to Richard Feynman and have a suggestion. Tis my opinion that RF was a scam artist. If you have access to RF's Lectures on Physics Vol III read chapters 5 and 6 and tell me if you think RF has a clue what is going on.
I recently, a couple of years ago, got the three volumes and immediately got a headache. It had been many moons since I had seen an equation. Anyway once I figured RF's style I went crazy. I learned more in a few brief months than a BS degree.
RF must have mentioned `mystery , I don't know, we don't know, trust me' etc. at once on every page (or so it seemed. Chapters 5 and 6 are a beautiful lesson.) By the time I had read that "how does the particle know that the hole is closed" or something like that I had an AHA! RF is a fake. His sum over histories is not original, and he is so confused its mind blowing.
I am getting three papers together and will copy you when they are completed, soon. Quantum mechanics, relativity, parity (symmetry) , Stern-Gerlach, diffraction is not a mystery.
I like your site,
Subject: The Uncertainty Principle Is Untenable Date: Thu Mar 13 15:54:04 2003 From: bmpgong***
NEW (unedited) paper - it's at Readers' Ideas
Author : Gong BingXin
Address : P.O.Box A111 YongFa XiaoQu XinHua HuaDu
GuangZhou 510800 P.R.China
E-mail : hdgbyi***
Now (May 2003) "Gong"lt;email@example.com>
Date: Tuesday 04 February 2003
This is a sad time.
Just sent condolences to n.a.s.a. comms dept. folk for loss of Columbia and Crew.
Regardless of differences, we share the quest.
If you want to express sympathy to Columbia's Crew's families - messages can be put in N.A.S.A's Condolence Book.
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 12:29:52 +0000 To: richardmacn***
Your info is interesting - a proper reply would need wider reconnaissance of aspects/attributes of UEF, especially those affecting `consciousness' and maybe even `transmission' (via i.x.i ?) of sensation or information to / from the mind-brain.
That inquiry could be dangerous, 'cos it'll be attacked by `vested interests' who retain power by compartmentalizing and restricting human inquiry.
We don't have ready knowledge of this area - You clearly do. So we're asking you to apply your expertise and review the field, at present a forbidden zone which actually overlaps "physics" / "psychology" / "spiritualism" / "religion" and more.
`Perceptions' hopes to publish your results a.s.a.p. (as a piece or maybe as rolling research). "SciMAIL" / "MetaMAIL" (& "Readers' Ideas"?) pages can maybe take up your challenge.
Well, problems are opportunities - and you're right; Richard agreed before we posted this formal invite as `placer' for links.
Full correspondence is sharp and might be published sometime - time & space short just now
Subject: 'life force' Date: Wed, 18 Dec 102 23:21:13 Eastern Daylight Time From: "richardmacn ***" richardmacn\***
EDITED - FULL (& v. interesting) TEXT HERE
Please let me first say how much I have enjoyed your website thus far. I'm particularly pleased that certain things that, as an interested layman, I had noted as being anomalous and ignored in current paradigms, you have explained via the UEF theory.
For example, a story in Scientific American a couple of years back suggested that the speed of light might not be a constant as accurate measurements were not consistent with each other gives rise to the obvious conclusion that E=mc2 must therefore be looking rickety... a conclusion which was not even hinted at in the article.
--------- (re: t'ai chi & `life force')
My 'theory' (a grandiose term) is that the struggle for the power of legitmising the political system that took place during the 'Enlightenment', (see, for example, Richard Lewontin's The Politics of DNA) in which science won out (leading ultimately to Darwinism, political prejudice masquerading as science), led the notion of a life force, however expressed, to be placed firmly in the area of religious experience rather than a legitimate area of scientific enquiry. The adoption of a mechanical paradigm during the Industrial Revolution further militated against an unbiased look at this idea.
It is from this perspective that I look at your views on feng shui and water dowsing...I have been absolutely ACHING for someone within the scientific community to give the phenomena associated with this some serious attention, as for example it might simultaneously resolve long-standing dilemmas in the fields of biology, the study of consciousness, and physics.
I have no idea whether UEF theory can resolve these problems. I do suspect that you'd find Reich's works of interest: and should you wish to experience for yourself someone who can genuinely perform 'impossible' feats, I would point you at www.energyarts.com, the website of Bruce Frantzis, the only westerner to become a 'lineage master' in several of the Taoist internal fighting arts, and someone who really can articulate the ideas behind a living Taoist tradition.
It's a big world out there and you may not have noticed the stuff about a Mr. Podletnkov (spelling?)... according to him, a rotating superconductor causes a reduction in the gravitational field. I've only got a little way through your website, but it seems consistent with the 'jet' consequence of UEF.
If you do a web search on TR-3B 'Manta', you may come across a description of an allegedly secret US craft which has given rise to the 'flying triangle' UFO reports. While its gravity shielding effect is supposedly explicable within the current paradigm, you may find UEF provides a more elegant solution.
It would be nice if the scientific community started to deal with these facts on their own terms rather than simply devise experiments whose protocols militate against the demonstration of the effect...
Rather than reiterate my argument - I would simply provide you with the following references:
W. Reich - "The Function of The Orgasm", "Character Analysis" et al.
Brian Inglis - "Trance"
Myron Sharaf "Fury on Earth" (biography of Reich)
B. K. Frantzis, "Opening the Energy Gates of the Body" plus his website at www.energyarts.com
A search on 'radionics' ought to throw up some items of interest.
Thank you for your attention
more recommends from Richard - Robert K.G. Temple's "The Sirius Mystery" and www.copvcia.com
Subject: why "UEF" Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 11:26:27 +0000 To: Pete Moore PeteMore***
'Lo Pete, and like your reasoning. Yes, that "unified" word was tempting - but eventually felt folks would lump UEF with the cloud of shaky / flaky GUTs that are vying for attention att.
(In "The Collapse of Chaos" Stewart and Cohen discuss that phenomenon of huge numbers of near-misses in any age, like Boscovich's stuff, that almost got the popular vote. But face it, up until now even the "best" theories were still wrong.)
Comment: Yes, you're probably right all along the line - not only does physical movement of smallest particle seem to be "sensible" (able to be sensed) thruout the cosmos, but slightest energy fluctuation of just one "electron" (reaction-pattern) looks to be similarly "visible" universe-wide.
And yes, the "speed" is the crux. Transmission needs to be "instantaneous" [or Earth would've been jettisoned by the Sun long ago - check i.x.i] - but mainstream academics, although they see it's demanded, still balk and bolt at the idea.
(Roger Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind" under "non-local" - where even he can't quite get his head round it)
Misjudged Penrose - on p 480 he says "... `simultaneity' is a concept which is foreign to relativity, being dependent upon the motion of some observer. It is my opinion that our present picture of physical reality, particularly in relation to the nature of time, is due for a grand shake-up" - Good man!
For examples of pseudo-metaphysical waffle, try this Google Groups search result - and who spells it "AETHER" anyway?
Subject: Re: why "UEF"? Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 01:23:37 EST From: PeteMore***
OK. my guess prior to your answer would have been: Unified Energy Field = UEF
Actually, I like my guess better since UEF would enable all forms of energy whether radiation or matter from the same (Unified) source. The holy grail of physicists has been the Unified Field Theory of which UEF would be a prospective solution. Others have dabbled with this as well see: www.beotel.yu/~mmalovic/boblock/ and world.std.com/~sweetser/quaternions/ps/unified_field.pdf
I look at UEF as the all encompassing ETHER.
The ether in one sense is not faster than the speed of light. It connects from one point in space to another or from one proton to another proton instantly. It doesn't really move it exists, it is there already and always.
How does a tiny proton so small that our most powerful microscopes cannot see them, exert a gravitational tug on another proton thousands of light years away? It can't but the Ether that connects them can and it does so continuously and instantaneously in accordance with mathematical relational laws.
There are no gravity waves that travel at the speed of light. The gravitational tug is the connecting Ether or as you call it UEF. The universe is connected such that one tiny movement of one tiny proton is felt by every other proton in the entire universe at the same time (instantaneous) because they are all connect with the same all encompassing unified fabric or UEF.
Pete Moore Houston, TX
Subject: why "UEF"? Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 01:02:03 +0000 To: Pete Moore PeteMore***
Sorry Pete, earlier say-so was buried / lost in site build-up. Originally used "cbgr" = `cosmic background gravity radiation' - until realizing:-
1) "background" wrongly describes all-encompassing UEF; 2) "gravity" permits mistaken belief that old `gravity' remains a "force"; 3) "radiation" allows misconceptions of nature of UEF (source of energy for all `radiation').
Problem - modern `science' only sees two `elementals' - 1) "matter" (atoms / protons etc); 2) "radiation" (photons / electrons etc); the fact that both are formed / permitted by UEF is unrecognized. So `blind science' (search in Google) has a fatally limited lexicon.
Finally decided on "UEF" : U = ubiquitous / uniform / universal; E = enabling / energizing / energy; F = [ flux ] / field / force / frame (since modern `blind science' still can't realize or describe UEF's real nature).
Thanks for opportunity
Subject: What Does UEF Stand for? Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 09:42:46 EST From: Pete More***
You Use UEF but never say what these letters mean.
Before you use abbreviations you should first define what they mean.
You use FTL and assume everyone knows that it means Faster than Light.
Subject: uncertainty principle is untenable !!! Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 21:25:21 +0800 From: pgong***
UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE IS UNTENABLE
[Long treatise - find at Readers' Ideas]
Author : Gong BingXin
Address : P.O.Box A111 YongFa XiaoQu XinHua HuaDu
GuangZhou 510800 P.R.China
E-mail : firstname.lastname@example.org
Now (May 2003) "Gong" <email@example.com>
Subject: "Pirelli INTERNETional Award 2002" Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:01:52 +0000
Thank you for your messages.
1) `Perceptions' operates without commercial or political backing and is always under threat of closure, possibly because it serves information and discovery needs for an oppressed and defrauded world.
2) `Perceptions' does not have the money, time or person-power to spend entering `beauty competitions' or to comply with `rules' other than over-riding needs of humanity.
3) Anyone wanting to review or judge `Perceptions' is free to do that; equally anyone wishing to help out with `Perceptions' [bare-boards] running-costs can also do that - and review those costs.
`Perceptions' aims for logic, we can't provide spurious escape clauses for mainstream `science'
CORRESPONDENCE STARTED WITH UNSOLICITED MAIL (EXTRACTS BELOW)
Subject: Call for Entries Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 14:10:10 +0100
Pirelli INTERNETional Award
You have been selected as a valuable resource and thus a potential participant in our cultural initiative through The Project Open Directory, and if you would like a free evaluation of your Website, you are encouraged to submit just your Websites' address (URL) directly, at: http://www.pirelliaward.com/web/award.html We shall evaluate it and notify our suggestions to you.
Looking forward to your participation, we remain at your service for any questions you might have.
Technical Committee Pirelli INTERNETional Award
Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:17:50 +0100
Your Website is admissible to the Pirelli INTERNETional Award... As said, through DMOZ / Science / Science in Society / Skeptical Inquiry, because of its original approach to science.
First of all, if you want to accept my advice but don't want to change your Website, remember that you are expected to send us a COPY of your Website, through the Internet, for off-line viewing (please read the instructions on how to send your work before and after you have filled-in the application form online, at http://www.pirelliaward.com/web/application.html.
Pirelli INTERNETional Award
c/o Pirelli, Rome Office / Foro Romano, 3 / 00186 Rome, Italy
phone ++39 06 69517610 / fax ++39 06 69517608 http://www.pirelliaward.com
Subject: theories/ideas from "laypersons"? Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 16:24:25 +0100 To: "mort's highway" <msthead9***>
Sure, and it depends on amount of words -
couple of paras - email
if you've got a page of text or so - and maybe diagram(s) - we could try a page/section for incoming theories (a pending thought anyway).
PS Hey - we're all laypersons really - "99% of Universe's data are unknown to `science'"
HERE'S "Readers' Ideas"
Subject: would you accept theories/ideas from laypersons? Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 00:40:39 -0700 From: "mort's highway" <msthead9***>
Your thesis questioning the existence of black holes excites me as this is how I feel, but for different less scientific reasons.
However, I would appreciate a place to express these ideas to a disciplined arena, if this is possible.
Subject: Newton & others Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 20:10:45 +0100 To: Graeme Cooke <ne_ender***>
Thanks for the (deserved) rebukes
Really have the greatest respect for those - Newton, Halley etc & more recent - who managed relatively clear thinking while surrounded by cultural quagmires of circular arguments, "decreed" axioms, and superstitions re: "forces".
But you're right - those pages were written in heat and need re-editing. Shouldn't be hypocritical - our own advice is always "re-read; cut out adjectives, strong language etc" - so am about to start doing that.
But it's a big job - especially the indexing.
So please keep up the good work - any more suggestions are welcome, and needed!
OK - But even so - modern `scientists' stretch incomplete hypothesese to cover inconvenient facts. Fact: they have no complete working theory and no knowledge of causes
So "black hole theory" / constancy of "speed of light" / real "speed of gravity" / "Relativity" / "f.t.l. trap" - might all get re-assessed, re-evaluated but a bit later than `Perceptions' did it
Subject: Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 14:08:10 -0400 From: "Graeme Cooke" <ne_ender***>
On your page, footnotes3.html#rotation I notice you aggressively discredit Newton laws of motion (among other things on your many pages).
What bothers me is that you say that students and scientists are being mislead by this. Of course these things are only relevent at non-relativistic speeds. They work however for 99.999% of what the majority of people will use those rules for. Any student that paid attention in his high school physics class will know that these only apply at low relativistic speeds. And any scientist who doesn't know should move to another field. When a child is learning to ride a bike we do not teach it to compensate for the earth's centripetal force....it's inconsequential.
I also notice in all your talkings that you seem to ignore relativity to a large extent in talking about gravitational collapse and the physics of it. As well as your discredit of any type of Black Hole theory, and the "big blinding target" theory. I could go on, but any object unaccelerated by gravity does have the longest worldline. This is a measured and accepted fact. And it has to play in any of these large gravity masses since a large mass will act as time anchor for the longest worldlines.
Now I don't want to get into some big debate, I'm just one of the many millions out there, and I honour you intentions and especially your perceptions on the arrogance (or perceived arrogance) of big science. I'm not upper class, and am probably not conformist (I have my own ideas on relativity and cosmology) so I have some strikes against me too. But being aggressive and spiteful will only deter you on your path.
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002 02:30:07 +0100 To: Frederick Wilson <f.g.wilson***>
Hello Mr. Wilson
You're probably right about "proto-type" policies.
Your interest in FTL Detector / Demodulator is justified. UEF Theory - given to the world after boneheaded [UK] bureaucrats couldn't understand it - says one basic force holds matter together & breaks matter apart (fission, fusion & jets); and that this UEF acts radially at f.t.l. speed.
No chance - thanks to boneheaded bureaucrats - of "proto-type" modeling. Yet, because UEF Theory dispels smog of "Relativity & "Quantum" dead ends, many countries' nuclear, astro & defense agencies have been downloading the break-through information for quite a while.
So, checking those lists, which agency/corporation might you expect getting an honest answer from?
Subject: technical writing Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 00:33:46-0700 From: "Frederick Wilson" <f.g.wilson***>
Mr. [ sci@perc],
Too many experiments are botched because of poor technical writing which makes reproducibility of results impossible. In the most ideal of worlds, a body would show other experimenters how the experiment is built, step by step, and in person. As this is impractical, the next best thing is good technical writing which translates 100% to finished product. Without this, any prospect of reproducibility is blind luck, or worse, magic.
I propose a method of transferring experiment-building information in the form of user-friendly scale-model kits which are clear, concise, focus group tested. They should also have built-in mechanisms which tell the builder each step of the way, by monitoring and testing systems, that the project is on course, till finished product.
Too expensive? How much more expensive is wasted effort on worthless junk destroyed by malfunction, or never right in the first place? How expensive and destructive is the failure of reproducibility and the damage it causes to public image and prospects of public support and future funding?
Now to the ftl detector/demodulator:
1) Is there a working prototype?
2) Are there published results and independently reproduced and published results? If so, where might I find them?
3) Do the suggestions in the paragraphs above have merit with respect to the detector?
Subject: great references - overlapping issues Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:16:23 +0100 To: m lost <mlostphx***>
Thanks for references
Science stuff - Yes that particular cycle (reversals of geomagnetic field - linked to solar field reversal cycle?) hasn't had much attention in current predictive theorizing. But it could well tie-in with one (or more) of the better known cycles:- of ice ages, of extinctions, of `dark ages', of civilizations' collapses. Give us some time to consider it - overloaded att.
Social stuff - Re "physical" solutions to social ills (like Spooner's recommendations):- Perceptions" has to assess them in light of `altruist survivor principle' which basically says human (or any other beings) social problems are either:-
i) temporary evolutionary quandaries - e.g, current human sex/gender confusions or
ii) eternal choices facing all intelligent beings at any time - e.g. oppression / murder due to "tragedy of the commons"
In either case `altruist survivor principle' implies that ills are (slowly) being cured by evolution of social beings (extinction of anti-social beings). This links with science stuff:- 'cos `Life' always contradicts "2nd Law of Thermodynamics" and is seemingly compelled to become more organized, less entropic. See "Order v Chaos" debate.
Please keep up good work - you're needed
Ed - Rechecked "precess - age of Earth" and like `M' said, the Egyptian stuff was badly written, unreadable. Try it again `M' - and anyone else - tell us it's better
SPLIT - PART OF MESSAGE AT Soc/EvoMAIL
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:11:27 -0700 (PDT) From: m lost mlostphx*** Subject: earth's magnetic poles To: editor perceptions.couk.com
I like your site.
You might find this article interesting: www.arstechnica.com/ . I thought it might pertain to your article about age of earth. I need to reread your article, got a bit heavy all of a sudden but was interesting nonetheless. Copied above article is below
An impending change of magnetic seasons? Posted 7/18/2002 - 9:28PM, by hanser
Whilst perusing Discover magazine today (7/2002 issue), I came across an interesting news blurb. Apparently, Earth is 530,000 years overdue for a flip in its magnetic poles. New data from the Ørsted satellite, measured against data from Magstat in 1980, is showing that the earth's magnetic field has changed most significantly below southern Africa and the North Pole. In this region, the north-south polarity appears to be wearing away.
This is unsurprising, as well-preserved magnetic rocks show that the poles swap roughly every 250,000 years, and it has been 780,000 years since the last swap. The new evidence, however, is not a sure sign of impending change as large magnetic fluctuations have occurred long before a reversal occurs, and the dipole field is still extremely strong by historical standards.
Says Gauthier Hulot of the Paris Geophysical Institute: "We've never seen a reversal happening immediately after such a high value."
If it is the real thing, our lovely blue planet could be in for some unpleasant changes: during reversals, Earth's field largely vanishes. This means that the flux of subatomic particles from space increases, resulting in intereference with the operations of satellites and an increase in radiation levels on the ground. Beyond that, the swap is likely expected to disrupt the migration of animals. Discussion]
Ed - Rechecked that "Age of Earth" page and like `M' said, the Egyptian stuff was badly written, unreadable. Try it again `M' - and anyone else - please say it's better now?
Magnetic polarity Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:44:11 +0100 To:D L Sharp <D71826>
Well if it was just us in the backyard we'd float it in a bowl of water (on a piece of wood) and the end that pointed north would be the "N" (-seeking) pole of the magnet - 'cos magnets are labeled opposite to Earth's poles
But you probably want a definitive answer that would work anywhere, like in a spaceship where there's no geomagnetic field - Right?
One method is from Richard P Feynman's "Six Not-So-Easy Pieces" in the chapter on "Symmetry" where he shows that magnets are not actually symmetrical in their effects. Apparently electrons emitted in cobalt beta decay are repelled by South pole of a magnet. He wrote "that distinguishes, in a physical way, the north pole from the south pole"
As Richard P Feynman was a very clever chap he seems to be hinting there's no other way except by that type of experiment.
( He also wrote that it was first proved by a "Miss Wu" [Professor Chien-Shiung Wu of Columbia - Fenyman a bit chauvinist?] so you might find it by search for "Broken Parity + Wu + Cobalt + Columbia" maybe )
Hope it works for you
[forecast: some time in future, with more sensitive instruments, we'll be able to measure difference]
Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:25:25 EDT
D.L. Sharp sent "Thanks!"
Subject: Magnetic Polarity Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:20:54 EDT From: D71826***
Please tell me how to determine the polarity of a magnet, For example;
Given the fact that one has only one flat magnetic bar, how does one tell which is the North polarity and which is the South polarity? In some applications this is needful to know!
D.L. Sharp Nashville, Tennessee
Mon, 11 Feb 2002 07:26:53 +0000 To: Cliff Clinton <edmond***>
CONTINUING MAIL DISCUSSION WITH CLIFF (he doesn't want his latest question published)
Glad you come onto that 2-slit thing, All the write-ups [we've] ever seen, except one, have been incomplete, which [we] firstly thought was authors being patronizing but now realize was sheer cowardice, because the same bit is always omitted (see radiation final part).
Looking at the experiment as usually described leaves one with the unsatisfactory "waves v particles" traits countering each other.
But after reading "Time, Space and Things" by Professor B.K Ridley ** (1984 Cambridge University Press) which [we] think was the one complete description, one realizes that neither wave nor particle can be the answer, because each is ruled out by aspects of the experiment.
(See radiation final part and note that Penrose's book also gives only the incomplete version of the 2slit experiment)
Eventually came round to thinking (realizing!) the answer was that a photon is a moving, intermittent (cyclic) conglomeration or coming-together of energy in a field.
Further reasoning (many factors) says that that field must be radial (in 3 dimensions), must be of incoming (and out-going) energy-points, must be f.t.l - by many [large] multiples.
After further checks of the nuclear aspect (see "bremsstrahlung" ***) the whole picture as described, although badly att, in radiation - came together more or less coherently.
Check out that second half of radiation and you might start the picture forming although, starting with the badly faulted biases we're all instilled with in school, it's a heck of a jump to get rid of the "wave v particle" blind spot.
Good luck, let me know how it's going.
** B.K.R, (along with Arthur C Clarke) was among few scientists who had knowledge (& nerve) to comment on the earliest circulated UEF/CBGR papers. BKR was kind enough to gently correct our scientifically illiterate slips & gaffes
*** UEF Theory, here, gives the only logical cause/effect explanation of `braking radiation', `synchrotron radiation' or indeed `emr radiation' of any kind
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 19:28:50 +0000 To: Cliff Clinton <edmond***>
You're right, 'mainstream' science seems to be mainly rote-learning from defensive text-books. Text-books can't print the whole truth - they're scared to.
[ Some of ] what they're afraid to print is at blinded.html and Tom van Flandern's "Speed of Gravity"
It comes down to first quotes at "verities" - we have to wear them down by telling them the truth until they answer or resign (or just die).
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 16:30:40-0800 From: Cliff Clinton <edmond***> To: uef perceptions.couk.com Subject: UEF
I found you page after I put down my ideas on force and gravity. You can find them at Gravityms.com. I look forward to reading your pages more thoroughly.
Keep up your work for there has to be an answer somewhere.