Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
UEF Theory
comment + criticism welcome
`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2004 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit

'03 - '04

LATER Impact Mars? Gravity? Fertility? UEF book? Un-symmetry Theory
Planets ENGRAM update Download? Project DM & DE Book2 Universe?
Matter? newtonian no phd? a Book? ants Quakes4 Planetary EARLIER


plse use "MAIL PERCEPTIONS" to input

Wed, 30 Jun 2004 18:54:48 +0100

Hello E.Y,
Agree; you're on form again with that analysis of impacts and elastic reactions by atmosphere, water and rock.

I hadn't thought about it in such depth but your exposition makes it very clear. Depending on precise angles and velocities there could be `patterns' of elastic reaction by atmosphere and surface tending to be additive then subtractive as in an interference pattern.

Thus at a particular point there could be expected to be periods of very strong forces ejecting debris from the gravity well, succeeded by intervals of compression. These might be significant in a medium to large impact event.

I think you have a valid scenario for ejecta to find their way off any of the rocky planets - to travel as meteoroids inside or even outside the solar system.

best regards

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 07:18:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Eklavya yadav

Hello Ray, Its quite a while since I last wrote to you.
Re the Impact modeling, you were right about the different models applicable for the different planets.
The argument that are going on in the CCNET forum is, how solid debris is able to escape the gravitational pull of the planets which are hit by asteroids/comets. Since solid debris has been detected in meteorites, scientists are pondering over how, inspite of atmospheric intervention, solid debris is able to gain escape velocity. A frequent suggestion is that the impact plume strikes out a path for these chunks of matter. Also, atmosphere is regarded as opposing to the escape of material through its resistance.

My speculation:
When the impacter enters the atmosphere at a hypervelocity, it produces a shockwave in the atmosphere, evacuating air from the area.
Upon impact, the stress waves travel out radially throwing solid material from the vicinity of the fireball. This solid debris, travels spacewards in a low pressure atmosphere. Since the stress waves travel much faster than any shockwave, the debris can be expected to be airborne when the shockwave in the atmosphere(from the impact explosion) reaches this debris. This shockwave generated by an explosion much much stronger than a nuclear one, should be strong enough to take the debris into higher regions where the solid components continue their journey into space.

So, contrary to the intuitive assumption, the atmosphere might be responsible for the escape of solid material into outer space.
let me know about your views,
Regards E.Y.

June 27, 2004

Hello folks.
Calling these photos "evidence" of life, and machinery is just plain silly. I have seen such ridges not only in the bottoms of lakes, rivers and streams, (and I know you have noted that they were not formed by water) but I have also seen them made out of snow in the walkway next to my house. Wind does that guys. Nice try.

"Em" gave quote below, so must be talking about Mars links at magic3 and maybe at exosci - what d'you think?
Em's quote:-
"2) Mars photos show large-scale working machinery[image] and their tracks [image1 - image2 many others] huge (electrical?) lamps / illuminators switched-on [image others] steam / vapor issuing from machines & / or buildings - [many images]"

Wed, 9 Jun 2004 00:36:29 +0100 (GMT/BST

I added part 5 to you might finet it interesting if not very different.


07 JUne '04
Mike, our friend in Phoenix has an urgent concern@MetaMAIL

Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 00:20:14 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Re: the moon and fertility - you might be interested in


Seems Kevin? is referring to Fertility page - ed.

21 May 2004
Replied to Graham (CC to Eklavya Yadav who earlier had same idea for India) with E.Y's use of "HTTrack" (see Google) to make a CD of UEF pages as "teaching aid" and tentatively outlined a syllabus beginning with "Abolish" - a laboratory bench view.

E.Y quickly reminded us that S.M.T page is a better start-point for wide-minded folk who want the cosmic view first. He's right.

RD - ed.

Subject: Just a thought Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 22:07:15 -0700 From: Graham Evans <grevans@****>

Hi again Ray

I was drifting thru Perceptions again last night.
Got tied up in why spiral galaxies are all over the place and why they have two arms - so simple. How does the core get so big tho that the arms have so much matter thrown out - we are talking galaxies here, not just massive stars and you have to have the plane (hence rotation) of the arms at rt angles to the original rotation

It got me to thinking. Have you ever considered a book about UEF - either yourself or in conjunction with other believers?

What got me going was thinking about how to perhaps even set up a lecture/presentation of the ideas - which are yours - not mine, to perhaps stir up the natives and draw some attention to the site and so force the establishment to openly consider / answer the idea - as we both know - they can't refute it.

I am a member of the Phoenix Astronomical Society ... See Richard and Kay took the classes I attended at the Carter Observatory here which led me to your site - you could say I became disorientated!!! It would be interesting to present these ideas to such a meeting and I would have to be a lot more sure of the ideas than I am currently.

Hope your summer is a good one. We are heading into winter and it has not been good in Wellington - the summer was the worst almost on record and autumn not much better

Best Wishes

Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 13:02:57 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Dear Ray
Am attending to study on Newtonian Quantum Mechanics for detailed applications. When send you its applications, you and readers will be understand it correctly. Because must to apply it on every physical explanations. Think that when complete them, it will be a new pysical system. Always want to share my thoughts with you.

Am sending you anew my study. When I was studying on the classification for physical mechanics, discovered mathematical infinite groups.
If you accept to the space and time as isotropic, it will have same constructions for every direction. Nowadays known physical mechanics have this constructions.

Its dimensions are integer dimensions. They are rational dimensions.

If you accept to the space and time as anisotropic, it will have different constructions for every direction. Unfortunately nowadays we haven't anisotropic mechanics.


Its dimensions are originating from the fractal and irrational and rational dimensions. We can observe this constructions as fractal and irrational constructions.

Our three dimensional space and time is an isotropic space. It has three rational dimensions.

Our three dimensional space and time has 4 fractal dimensions and 4 irrational dimensions with 3 rational dimensions.
Newtonian, Planckian, Einsteinian Mechanics are valid for isotropic spaces. But they aren't valid for anisotropic spaces.
Have determine their constructions and mechanics.

Ozan Hasimi

Date: Sat, 15 May 2004 18:13:27 +0100 (GMT/BST)

I am hoping you will be pleased to read my work on the equivalence problem. It is available at

It is long but thorough containing answers to any objector's objections (I think). You may have objections I have not thought of... or you may just be thrilled with it as written.

I often think that if anyone offers new considerations to this science, they are always ignored until after the offerer's demise. Then there is honor to the "discoverer" of the author's works along with safety since the author is no longer alive to object to any conclusions drawn.

If you like Article 6, you will love Article 1. Please read all the way through to the end before passing judgement. If you hold one false concept in high regard this belief may stop you from reading.

It is hard to get everything right in this science.
If one false concept is accepted as real then everything thereafter that calls on this false concept for support is work without merit. I call this the lost logic principle.

Hope you are pleased with my work.
Ethan Skyler

Subject: other planets? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:34:41 +0100 To: "Claudio K. Herrera" ckeithherrera***

Hello Claudio,
Thanks for your interesting query about planets. We have some clues, because solar system planets have differing `tilt angles', rotation speeds and even rotation directions.

A `new' planet would spin almost perfectly `upright' (no tilt - zero `obliquity' as the astronomers say). Even so, tiny wobbles of precession due to gravitational effects of all surrounding bodies - no matter how far away - would affect it over time. That's probably why Jupiter is changing climate right now.

Extreme planetary case is Venus which rotates the `wrong' way, at the `wrong' angle and at the `wrong' speed for its place in the solar system.  Why?  Because it either started out somewhere else but some force put it into present orbit, or it was a solar planet that something hit hard enough to move, tilt, and slow its rotation.

Similar applies to Mars, which is `too small' for its present position and probably started life as a moon of a gas-giant like Jupiter or Saturn.  [There is a huge `scar' on the surface of Mars] - check mars.html for new details of Mars planetary crust thickness.

Likewise Earth was probably hit (several times?) to give present rotation speed, and slowly changing tilt (now about 23 degrees), which gives our weather and seasons - check precess.html

Here's a couple of good `fact' references:-,

Best wishes

Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:07:34 +0100 (GMT/BST)

I really like the information in your pages.

Maybe you could answer a question of mine.
are other planets tipped on an axis or is it just earth?
if they are on a tilt do they wobble?
you can reach me by E-mail ckeithherrera***
thank you.

Claudio K. Herrera

Subject: Human Mind Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 07:20:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Eklavya yadav <eklavyayadav2002***>

Hello Ray
Hope you are doin well.

Once again, I'd like to laud your efforts and the skills as an editor which have brought out a web-site which stands apart from the useless millions and millions of pages that infest the Internet. Firstly, one doesnt realise while going through perceptions that its a website; it feels much more like a Magazine.
Secondly, 'Perceptions' pages have forced me to examine my own thinking and behaviour and perhaps I am a wiser person than I was last year.

When a truth is exposed its either accepted or rejected; but what your are exposing is perhaps a truth so bitter and fundamental that the people who are playing the villians are themselves not aware of their own practises; rather the evil of their own practices. So, you should expect the threats and the attempts of bringing your work down.

I, in the last one and a half year have read exhaustively about the working of the mind.

The mind is actually very simple, much simpler than the one which the psychologists, psychiatrists and the doctors describe. It perhaps is the only organ which can think about its own functioning. But it is still primitive in many ways compared to the kind of lifestyle that we have developed in the world. Memory is often regarded as a special characteristic of the mind but its not believed to affect the funtioning of the mind. In fact, disordered functioning of the mind is thought to have an affect on the memory.

Thus it's worth emphasizing that memory is an intrinsic part of the working of the mind in a way which is much much more determining than previously; rather widely thought.

When man evolved into the current species he had tremendous analytical power available. People overlook the term "analytical power" becuase it's without any detailed description, attributed to problem solving. As man sets about his work at the rising of the sun, he confronts many situations of as many types. Each situation calls for a specific type of analysis.

The beauty of the analyzer of the human mind is that it solves problems of different natures simultaneously. Guaranteed survival. If full analytical power is available, the faculty of intuition saves from potential dangers. Accidents are nothing but reduced analytical power.

But another mechanism reduces the analytical power. This mechanism though existent for survival, has outlived its purpose. Rather, we have created an environment that makes the existence of this mechanism an antithesis of the purpose for which it was created. And, the mechanism is : Engram / Toxicosis in the Brain.

Recording of the environment begins at an amazingly early level in the human zygote. A confirmation of this can be obtained by several methods which do not employ the instruments of the present age simply becuase they are not sophisticated enough. This recording incessantly continues t! ill death. Fortunately each second of the recording is available to us but only through some procedures.

Our analyzer in the mind is unfortunately not rugged enough. After all its a very very complex part that recieves information possibly via UEF and makes calculations. A sudden trauma, stuns the analyser and takes it out of the circuit. What happens then, gets recorded but in the form of an Engram. The engram contains sights, smells and sounds after the analyzer was stunned.

With the resumption of analyzer functioning, recording returns to a normal mode. Such mechanism's pro-survival (but flawed) nature is understood by considering the following scenario:

After our man recieved an engram, when he carelessly trespassed a bear den and narrowly escaped the mother bear's attack, he sets out on a foraging trip some days later. He approaches a bear track without being aware of its presence. Suddenly the smell around such places keys in the engram. Our man becomes agitated. He starts feeling the pain in his sides where the animal had previously hit with its claw. With this keying in of the engram, away runs the man without really knowing wether there was a bear in the area or not. There was otherwise, food that he could have had if this engram wouldnt have keyed in.

So we see that the engram saved the man from a possible bear attack by bringing about the reaction, but also deprived him of food which the man could have obtained from the place.

In modern times when we no longer have to forage for food and rely on our mind's reactive nature for survival, engrams are a curse. Ever since conception, the baby is aware of the sorroundings and can recieve engrams. These engrams lie dormant and key in perhaps with the changing UEF pressure. They change our lives and prevent us from reaching our full potential.

With their re-stimulation they usurp the analytical power and bring in irrationality and psychosomatic disorders (which almost 99% diseases are). Example my eldest sister called me a 'fake' years back when I used to do science experiments at the cost of studies. To this day when I sit to study I battle with that voice. Its an engram and it needs to be erased.

Now to the most important part of this discussion. How will we benefit from this knowledge. Firstly, engrams are not permanent. They can be erased, freeing analytical power.

L.R. Hubbard who found the religion of scientology (the organisation visits your website) and the realted science of dianetics performed extensive research and brought out the Auditing Techniques of Dianetics. These techniques involve putting the patient (most of us are, some more than others) in a reverie in which the subject is awake but eyes are closed and is recalling memories from a particular time. As engrams are found, they are erased by acessing the engram again and again. On the neurochemical level, engram is a memory that is TOXIC containing excess of neurotransmitters. As this memory is repeatedly acessed, the toxins are released and the engram is converted into standard memory freeing up analytical space.In short, physical or emotional trauma causes neurons to toxify.

The brain cannot vomit and the stomach can't go insane. Inflamation of the brain is same as that of stomach. But when the brain tries to repair itself, it ejects the neurotransmitters into consciouness keying in the engram that was recorded in that area of the brain. Mental illnesses are nothing but detoxification attempts of the brain.

How long will the brain take to detoxify is rather a mystery that astrology seems to unravel. Very often astrological charts can indicate mental illnesses and even their abatement.

My theory is: UEF pressure affects the mass of the brain which is very peculiarly arranged. As the pressure changes, certain engrams get keyed in. Also the brain accomplishes detoxification with changing uef. With uef shielding, we can help the brain detox faster and erase engrams. A toxin free brain will bring about a toxin free nervous system which will bring about a toxin free body ensuring perfect health.

An anology in physics which I once wrote goes like this: If a particle is headed for a system of particles, the future will be decided by its energy. If we change the energy level in the particle we will change the future. Our detoxification will change the energy level and our lives. Perhaps future is in our hands.

Hope you find this useful

08 Mar. 2004

His `Cold-Pressure Homepage'

Tue, 24 Feb 2004 17:14:24 +0000 To: Eklavya Yadav <eklavyayadav2002***>

Hello again E.Y,
thanks for your support - I'm flattered. I wouldn't really expect a "professional" (with tenure to lose) to risk backing a new theory that the "establishment" maybe fears or wants kept secret.

And I can almost understand their fears - in England there is still reluctance.The National Endowment for Science & Technology (NESTA) said [UEF Theory] was "too controversial" and they "couldn't understand it" - (suspect pique from their advisors: "Oxbridge" scientists - real scientists are more interested).

Interestingly I was thinking along your lines a few years ago - trying to construct scenarios where we might generate a new, individual UEF field. Eventually accepted [that] we could achieve various levels of interaction [modulation / manipulation] with the basic UEF field (extracting power, propulsion, shielding etc) but that "fresh [UEF field] generation" is perhaps out of reach - until we're able to create new universes.

Re your last para:- a low-frequency UEF comparator, ie. a gravity-wave detector and remote-mass-detector (planet/asteriod finder) might not be _very_ expensive. Emitters could be almost any lamp or diode, the splitters (half-silvered mirrors?) might be borrowed from existing (quantum) experiments and the matched comparators could be rigged from two light-sensitive diodes working into a single suitable chip (there are various comparator cct chips already in use - maybe customise working conditions and output settings). Calibration of output - [for planet / asteroid detection] etc, delicate equalization of inputs, and achieving sufficient directionality are problems that persistence might solve.

BTW - please tell [edited] that his "explosive" view is welcome whichever way - scientific, social or further - am happy for him to circulate that opinion as widely as possible. After all, Arthur C Clarke, first sympathetic reader of [UEF Theory], is an adopted resident of your sub-continent - yes?.

In admiration of your clear thinking, hard work and tenacity, best regards from

Subject: download Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 03:15:10 -0800 (PST) From: Eklavya Yadav <eklavyayadav2002***>

hi Ray
Thank you. I am sure I will be able to download `Perceptions' with your tips. The rock drawings in Uzbekistan section is very interesting too. I have actually decided to make a full `Perceptions' CD and hope to give it to some people.

I have been lobbying on your behalf in the - [ edited ] - meetings in my city (same place where I once won "Young Astronomer 1997" award)... My introduction of your UEF theory to [edited] has roused interest to the extent that whenever he on the internet he takes a look at your web page. But he keeps saying the site is EXPLOSIVE!!!!

I am determined to study your theory and prepare a presentation that will hopefully open up their minds. But it's very frustrating to see that people value prestige and personal gains more than REAL knowledge.

One problem that I am facing is to figure out how will a UEF signal be generated artificially? Or will it be, merely with the help of a rotating magnetic field, a manipulation of the UEF?

Even before I discovered `Perceptions', I was preparing a draft of my book and I portrayed the character central to the story, as an individual who struggles in a society that 'refuses' to acknowledge him etc etc. He works in a makeshift laboratory where he sucessfully carries out a magnificient experiment which validates a ftl radiation. Now its rather easy to imagine the picture.

While reading "Probabilities Of The Quantum World" which describes the incredible events in the lives of the incredible people who brought about the quantum revolution, I felt very privileged to be in touch with you. I am sure UEF theory will be eventally accpeted as there is no other explanation for so much of stuff.

And finally, I hope I will some day have a UEF detector which I could orient vertically and detect the UEF fluctuations from the stars, but wonder how much will the comparators and the laser lamps cost!

Best Regards

Subject: download Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:21:45 -0800 (PST) From: Eklavya yadav <eklavyayadav2002***>

Hello again Ray!
Hope you are doing great. Anything new there?

How can I download all of the UEF content and make a CD out of it. One way is to download all the pages individually and store in a folder. Do you have any other suggestion, like a particular way in which I could download the entire contents of UEF.

Hope to hear from you soon

Sent details of "HTTrack" (see Google) - ed

Subject: Science Fair Project Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:44:10 EST From: DaJabroni03***

How does the amount of gravity affect the humans weight???

Help Please!!!!!!!!!!!

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:26:58 +0000
Let's say you weigh 60 kilos here on Earth. That means when you sit on a chair it will feel 60 kilos weight (gravitational mass) resting on it.
And if you sat down too fast you would feel a pain - because 60 kilos (of inertial mass) was moving and hit something hard.

At Earth's sea level gravitational mass = inertial mass.

If you were on the Moon your chair would only feel 10 kilos weight on it because Moon's gravitational attraction (gravity) is 1/6 of Earth's.
But you'd still hurt yourself sitting down too hard because you'd still have the same body (with 60 kilos of _inertial_ mass, which can't change just because you've gone to the Moon).

The situation is laid out at graveffect [and inertmass]

Hope all that seems sensible.

Subject: A dirty and inelegant solution: i.e. dark matter and dark energy. Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 18:43:13 +0000 To: Richard Montanari <montanar***>

Hello Richard, good to hear from you.

You're very perceptive, correctly noticing (how?) some effort going into wider subjects recently.

But don't worry, am keeping up pressure on the (strangely reluctant) science & gov't establishments - take a look at blinded.html#10 - two references labeled "COPY CATS"

I think you're quite right in your analysis of the confusion over D.M & D.E.

Physics has to take a "step beyond" thinking of the universe as being only protonic matter set in a vacuum. When it is realized that all matter is everywhere clenched in a vice of UEF energy, then everything is explained. As you imply, the UEF solution is both simple and physically "elegant".

However, feedback from those wider subjects hints at a [defensive] attitude towards a science breakthrough.

Thanks for the reminder and encouragement
best regards

Subject: A dirty and inelegant solution: i.e. dark matter and dark energy. Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 17:48:22 +0100 From: "Richard Montanari" <montanar****>

Hallo Ray!
Hope all is well with you and I am at it again. Got the feeling you are diversifying and UEF is not any longer one of your overidding concerns / passions. I say this because `Perceptions' seems different these days.I must admit I do not consult regularly, it is just an impression, and I hope I am wrong.

Please let me know as I am a fan of UEF.

Sent you a message last year below. Now just read about DM & DE on the Economist. I am attaching the article. It makes for startling news. A chance for UEF to come forward?

All the very best

03 Feb. - interesting sci / meta dead-end poses a social question !

Subject: Mathematics Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 16:39:21 +0000 To: Eklavya Yadav <eklavyayadav2002***>

Hello E.Y,
Yes, although I _do_ feel mathematics has much to say about natural phenomena (Planck / Weyl / Einstein early writings insightful - especially Weyl's).

Think the limit (that tautology thing) was found by Gödel (try and other sites) which shows us that mathematics, while describing possible `perfect' states and phenomena [in all `possible' frames, dimensions, universes],
cannot unequivocally describe the actual (mainly because the mind-set of the mathematician will preclude comprehension of "a step beyond" an accepted model or paradigm).
best regards

(see Eklavya Yadav's Fluctuation Detector - ed.)

E.Y's message (compound of two)

Hello Ray
Where I grew up, it has been taught that mathematics is the only way to validate your ideas and now that I have read the UEF theory, I am more than convinced that what I was taught was absolute ****.

I say mathematics is the game invented by the ones who could not come up with original ideas___YES. The geeks in my school so enjoyed burrowing into the Math practice books and now I know why. Even I, at one stage, used to enter the 'hypnotic' trance and ruthlessly solve maths questions. But I have come a long way, and realised that what has been projected since a long time, is UNTRUE.

I have thought about the Balance and I feel that inspite of my pessimistic attitude towards such sudden discoveries, this idea might have some weight. And yes, without the inspiration from your theory, this thing would have probably remained undiscovered.

If we consider the sea and the fish scenario, we have one important conclusion. If the sea bed suddenly collapsed to a more greater depth, then the pressure at the various points along the body of this giant fish would increase, forcing it to change its body OR TO REACT TO THE CHANGE and that is exactly what this structure will do if a fluctuation is generated.

Subject: "mathematical Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 09:42:25 -0800 (PST) From: Eklavya yadav <eklavyayadav2002***>

Hello Ray.
Here is the mathematical stuff that I was talking about.

When I read your theory's early draft webpage, I was impressed by the remarkable way in which you fixed the irregularities in the conventional theories. When I first saw the explanation of gravitational attraction, the shadow thing, I felt that truly great ideas are often very simple. Though I have read this statement before, I never really believed it.

I will tell you once again, that the circumstances under which I discovered your web site are very interesting.

But we will talk about all that later.

So, armed with inspiration, I started doing thought experiments. I could then clearly visualize the sea of UEF all around us and the ocean of UEF that lies beyond the shielded solar system. And then it struck me in an instant.

Copyright © 2005 Eklavya Yadav
Have you seen the deep ocean fishes? They are different from the ones that live near the surface. That's because of the pressure. To an observer oblivious of the sea, who does not have any instrument to measure the pressure, it will seem that fishes are simply different at greater distance (depth) from the surface. What if there were a fish so long that it spanned across various pressure depths? It would be transparent and jelly like near the ocean bed and solid and opaque near the surface. This will give the observer a clue (assuming he/she is little intelligent) that there is something that makes the body of one long fish different along its length. That was it. I had to think of a structure that could show the gradual decrease of the intensity of gravitational attraction.

I fiddled with many ideas but couldn't succeed.

One night, I lay in bed visualizing masses falling, pendulums swinging, and weight balances swaying. And just then it came again like a vision.

The first picture is of the structure. I hope my hand writing is not a hindrance in comprehension of the (paper?)

In the first page, you can see the structure. We will call it the Multiple Balance.

The rods in the balance have been assumed to be mass-less and the threads, of sufficient tensile strength.

Separation of each spherical mass `m' is l and the length of each rod is l

The points of suspension of each rod have been adjusted so that moments about each P are equal for each rod.

The nth rod configuration has been shown separately. The value l1 / l2 has been taken as gn

My first objective is to investigate the properties of the equilibrium point gn which is a very special point. It is the equilibrium point of two kinds of forces.

The direct force of attraction between the spherical mass `m' and the earth. Assume it like the arm of gravity directly tugging at the mass `m'. The sum of all the forces on the masses below the nth mass i.e., the collective pull of the tentacles of the gravity.

My second objective is to find equations that can be helpful in understanding situations where the curvature of space changes drastically with small changes in distance from the body. Perhaps Multiple Balance can be instrumental in understanding the tidal force effect.

The mass `m' at the nth rod, is probably being affected by the rest of the masses too. But perhaps this force is miniscule because there is no concentrated mass in the system. You are very welcome to correct wherever needed and of-course improvise or draw additional conclusions.

When I first conceived the idea, I thought it's quite similar to the energy level model of the atom. The field can be understood only by its manifestations. And gn is a mathematical manifestation.

gn = ____1_______
      n2 [ĺi=1 n-1 1/i2 + 1]

Finally I have also drawn an alternate balance system in which the masses are absent and the rods have gained weight (oops mass!!). You can see the diagram on the last page.

In the last configuration, the ratio l1 / l2 is altered by l2 - l1 which still gives us the point of equilibrium.
Copyright © 2005 Eklavya Yadav

I will write more on the conclusions side. But for the time being I hope this will keep you busy.

Waiting eagerly for your comments,

[can see Eklavya Yadav Theory - ed.]

Subject: Planck-epoch expansion Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 00:29:38 +0000 To: Kastl John F KPWA <kastl***>

Hello John, Thanks for that well worded piece.

Going at it aggressively means getting burnt-at-the-stake (Bruno) and complying means lying (Galileo) - but think your `modest & honest' proposal has more chance of success than most
best regards

Subject: Planck-epoch expansion Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:28:54 -0800 From: Kastl John F KPWA <kastl***>

I believe I may have stumbled onto a peak at the Universe's Planck-epoch expansion (see charts). I was putting together a computer simulation - trying to explain the present day high expansion rate using a cosmic model similar to your UEF, with the notion that the UEF came from the contents of the observable universe - when this popped out.

I have no idea how to get to the present day expansion from here - the extrapolated trend line would predict too low a present day expansion rate - but just the fact that the expansion would have to increase above the trend line to get to where we are today and the fact that the present day expansion is higher than would be projected from our cosmic observations, would seem to provide creditability to this description of the Universe's beginning. To put it more generally, from what I know of the scientific community's recent observations looking back in time and deep into space, these charts are totally credible.

Support for the credibility of these charts doesn't stop there. For me, one major bit of support is that the simulation's time dimension is derived and is not fundamental. Even the delta t is derived. More than a few physicists should find this aspect of the simulation significant and to fit right in with their view of time as nonfundamental.

Other bits of support include a prediction for inflation, an H proportional to 1/t, and the simulation's elegant simplicity. Also promising is the model's derived non-zero Planck time, after plugging in the Planck length, as the beginning of time. The tie in with quantum mechanics, while leaving Einstein's spacetime continuum in tact, should please both particle physicists and astrophysicists alike.

The simulation's beginning point at H*t=1 is also encouraging. As a side note, one surprising outcome of the simulation was that the expansion did not kick off with an initial period of 'acceleration'. I certainly wasn't expecting that. H starts at 1/t and comes down from there - albeit with a few bounces. Again, this elegantly simple, nonaccelerated beginning is very encouraging.

I suppose the next step is to better explain the model and the computer simulation that generated these charts. I'll be back to you on that. In the meantime, feel free to post these charts. Hopefully, someone out there will figure a way to pull up the trend line and extend the H curve to the present day expansion and beyond.

[linked charts EXCEL file - ed.]

06 Jan. - News for readers of Sci-Fi & More

Subject: Planck-epoch expansion Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 09:23:14 +0000 To: Kastl John F KPWA <kastl***>

Hello again John,
As roughed out in SMT (& topology) think one force operates to push together (and hold apart) the various divisions of known matter - from below `particles' upwards to galaxies and far higher.
That is, at each "threshold" of size/density the force is felt differently by that matter; so gas molecules do _not_ collide (the "Gas laws" are notoriously faked-up).
It would seem that (gas effect) returns after going up several threshold above galaxies to galactic super-clusters which it seems are again fully "repelled"

Now for the problem(s)-
The basic force can be expected to be decreasing, BUT, as more "matter" is generated there will be more "repulsion" within certain (changing) divisions of matter.
Remembering that the same force causes both "gravity" (affecting protons up to medium-large galaxy groups) and "repulsion" within_ certain divisions (see "Brownian Motion"), re-asserted again above that very large super-galactic threshold, then we might expect to see the two competing effects maybe seesawing over time, or one winning over the other.

It seems our real problem is simply that of accurate enough measurement over enough time - and of being sure _what_ we're measuring. But that's always been a problem.
best regards

Subject: Matter - Space Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 14:54:01 +0000 To: Kastl John F KPWA <kastl***>

Hello John, (just a quick note - glass in hand).
That's interesting. You're examining _real_ questions there, and each has problems.

1) Seemed that the universal "constants" could be expected to be changing, in absolute terms and w.r.t each other. I.e amount of matter increasing while _real_ density / charge / field strength decreases.
[A problem - we measure most "constants" by inference - with ref to others \\ Like that recent attempt to measure "speed-of-gravity" using optical data had a constrained upper limit of `light-speed']

2) Looks to be intrinsic that the basic (changing?) energy field/force is felt differently and reactively, dependent on matter's size/density thresholds [would account for changes in expansion rates maybe (data needed before more comment)].

Prolonged readings of values of "constants" needed [see recent controversies] to get an idea of slope of graph just now. Maybe "look-back" at early states via Hubble data for comparisons, but care needed in translation.
Hope to say more on this.
Best regards

Subject: Matter - Space Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 14:36:28 -0800 From: Kastl John F KPWA <kastl***>

I'm in the process of refining a simulation of the Planck-epoch expansion (see attached). Refining, in fact, is not the operative word my computer model is far from ready for prime time.
Among other things, the model would seem to predict a far younger Universe than observations would dictate.

While trying to resolves the problems with my model, I happened onto 'Perceptions'. I thought I saw some similarities in our thinking.
One question I have for you is whether you have a fix on how the energy/matter ratio changed with time.
A second question is what is it that drives spatial expansion - I have my theory, albeit unsuccessful at this point .
Hoping to hear from you soon.

24 Dec. - interesting meta-mail re: "Real Planetary Effects" from "E.Y" (below)

Subject: NEWTONIAN QUANTUM MECHANICS Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:19:11 +0000 To: "Ozan Hasimi OKTAR" <javaquant***> "Ozan Hasimi OKTAR" <javaquant***>

That sounds interesting, perhaps you would like to put something on-line, either as text document or as html web page(s) - a link could be made from your message to your web page [ or ] if you want, it can be featured at Readers' Ideas and again that can be linked from your message.
best regards

Subject: "NEWTONIAN QUANTUM MECHANICS Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 04:58:32 -0500 From: "Ozan Hasimi OKTAR" <javaquant***> "Ozan Hasimi OKTAR" <javaquant***>

Constructed a new physical mechanics as theoretical. It is contacting between Newton Mechanics with Quantum Mechanics. Namey we can explain with Newtonian Explanations on Quantum Mechanics. Because of this mechanics provides quantizations for force, mass, electrical charge, electrical and magnetic fields and other Newtonian properties.
Because forces are quantum packages in my explanations and can explain on every force with this theory. This theory has a physical constant and uncertanity equations, found and proved them.

Subject: hi Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2003 08:11:25 -0800 (PST) From: Carlos Josepf <sandy_lead2000***>

Hi ray
I'd like to know about your background ie, do you have a degree in astrophysics or any other related discipline?
Your web site is wonderful. I am figuring things out.

Long reply, here snips:- "Hello Carlos, thanks ... Heck no ... Decided "e.m.r/gravity/inertia" puzzle had to be fixed ... initiated UEF theory. Logic & comms theory [like complex "truth tables" for technical / operational use (military)] - maybe helped dismiss `unscientific' text-book assumptions. (BTW, recommend mind-sharpener.)
hope [`Perceptions' site's] useful & enjoyable.
best wishes


Subject: "hi Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 06:06:48 -0500 From: orion***

Hi Ray
I was an aircraft Mechanic for 4 years but I have always been a science enthusiast. I plan to return to mainstream science to be able to pursue what I always thought I was made for - Astronomy.

I am also trying my 'hand' at writing which I enjoy very much. I want to incorporate the UEF theory in my book. This is becuase the theory legitimizes FTL travel on which I want to base the SF book.

I am hereby making a request to feature your theory (which I have extensively studied).
Whatever your answer be, please do let me know.
Eklavya Yadav

Sent "Fine - go ahead" & good luck - ed.

Subject: "help me? Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 05:34:17 -0800 (Pacific Standard Time) From: "nq" <privet77***>

hi ..........
I liked your web side, and I thought maybe you could help me, I need some information about ants for healing reasons, I need to know what are ants made of, as for an example : a human been contains many minerals and elements such as iron ,sulfur, magnesia .....and other. I need to know the minerals and elements in ants with the exact amount or nearly to it , the big sizes ants not the small one.

please, its very important , I need it as soon as you can .

and if you know other web sides that could help me send to me.
[address supplied]
and thank you veeeeeeeeeeery much , and sorry for my English

Sent introduction - Morphology and FAQ resource - ed.

Interesting meta-mail re: "Sphinx and Pyramids"

Subject: "Yoshio and Reiki Kushida" Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 18:01:02 +0100 To: Graham Evans <grevans***>

Hello again Graham, good to hear (Wed, 17 Sep 2003 19:48:12 +1200) from you.

Thanks for Japanese earthquake radio-prediction link - I'd missed it.

It concerns Yoshio and Reiki Kushida of Yatsugatake South Base Observatory, Honshu, Japan, who have a good record of optical astronomy. He and she are also paying some attention to radio phenomena - in particular those correlating with onset of earthquakes.

You know three main factors - changing over time - influence earthquake events:-
1) variations in driver force: cause / trigger of tectonic movement (check);
2) variations in the integrity of Earth-crust and rock strata;
3) total stresses accumulated in local crust / strata.

It may be that Yoshio and Reiki Kushida are indirectly observing #1. But it's likely they're more directly observing #2 or #3 - (or _both_). Comparison of timings should reveal which.

Therefore even more conclusive predictions could be made by combining all available indicators (taking respective delays / lags into account).

Can't find emails for Yoshio and Reiki Kushida but any colleague, friend or neighbor of theirs can please tell them they are welcome to use info and tools at checkalign (and links) to help with their earthquake-prediction work, which is clearly of greater humanitarian significance to people living in Japan (rather than in UK)

Oh, and thanks to demands by you and other folk, have put up-date page into the newer html template.
best regards

Subject: SOLEX 8.5 Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2003 09:09:24 +0200


We're happy to hear - from Professor Aldo Vitagliano - there's a new version of SOLEX (

QUOTE - "It is now possible to search for multiple planetary grouping ... I would suggest that you first read the documentation carefully (file SOLEX85.RTF in the subdirectory DOCS), especially section 3.12 (pp. 8-10)"

Our thanks to Professor Vitagliano.

[ 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 © 2004 Ray Dickenson

this page


Share This