Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
UEF Theory
comment + criticism welcome
`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2006 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit

'05 - '06 SciMail

LATER Mars? Theory? Ancient Maps? You're SOLD? REPLY (to rant)
Brain News? Mechanics? NZ Query DARK M~ PROBLEMS PRECESS2


plse use "MAIL PERCEPTIONS" to input

Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 11:06:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Morningstar Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Aerial Reconnaissance

Dear Ray,

Thank you for your post and the links, which I have had in my archives for a while.
However, you have zeroed in on very important regions like Solis Lacus and Syrtis Major.

I have been working for years on the Mysteries of Mars and making precisely the same point: For many years, NASA has be "dehancing" photos of Mars both from Mars Orbiter Camera and Hubble Telescope to remove terrain features and, most importantly, evidence of an active Martian atmosphere, replete with clouds and a powerful Aurora effect that streams from North to South Poles.

It is also hiding the true depth of the region called Solis Lacus, which is actually hundreds of miles deep (not 3 Km).  I observed these features and active Martian weather patterns for 3 days in August of 2003 when Mars made its closes approach to Earth in 60,000 years.  Up till last year, NASA "double speak" was full of contradictions.  One example, NASA for years described the Martian atmosphere as very thin and of extremely low pressure while descibing global dust storms and wind speeds of 200 mph.  How can a thin atmosphere reach wind speeds of 200 mph that scour and carve terrain into such unusual features?

On October 1st, 2004, I presented a paper before the American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics at Johns Hopkins University's Department of Applied Physics before the local Mini-Technical Peer Review Panel, detailing my discovery of what I dubbed "TMA-1: The Martian Artifact - A Sign of Intelligent Life on The Red Planet."

Since that time and with the appointment of Dr. Michael Griffin, former President of AIAA, there has been a marked change in NASA policy regarding what has been found on Mars.  This year, NASA released the first accurate photo of Mars showing the clouds and weather patterns, which I described in my paper at Johns Hopkins University.

Robert Morningstar
Member, US Naval Institute-Federation of American Scientists
American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics

UFO UpDates - Toronto wrote:
From: Ray Dickenson
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:26:20 +0100
Subject: Aerial Reconnaissance

Maybe try to get your eye in by tracing some vehicle / foot / animal tracks & small dwellings in Earth's deserts, here's one dubbed 'end of the road' (though if you check dunes to the north and west there's other lighter trails semi-obscured by sand) - << 38.333238,85.223840 >> in Google Earth.  Following that 'road' south shows a number of those black oblongs beside the road - roofs? or tents? or caches (one or two show good shadow for estimating height of 'walls')

Maybe also try << 38.369300,85.226800 >> for an isolated 'house and gardens'?, although I think there's more to it than that.

After that try Mars - although resolution is much lower, and some people think there's a lot of 'purposeful' camouflage applied to these views (try toggling 'elevation / visible / infrared - & zooms).

Lots more - and other recommends available on the web.

Ray D

Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 14:52:09 -0000




The four fundamental forces:
The light speed:
The curvature of space-time:



This paper is an attempt to answer why modern physics works while nobody knows how it can be like that.  It's an attempt to combine the four fundamental forces; to explain the measurement problem, to explain the duality wave-particle, to explain why light speed is constant etc.
Am I right? Am I wrong? I don't care.  The paper in it's all is wrong but maybe somewhere there is a part of truth.

I am not a physicist.  Physics are my hobby.  My English is very bad.  But I really want to share my thoughts of amateur with someone who can understand.  You have here a funny idea clumsily expressed. I intend this paper to be understood by professionals, but I am afraid my very bad English and the use of a non-professional style made it very hard to read and seem worthless.

I don't believe in many things, but I prefer keeping my common sense, I prefer this hypothesis to quantum strangeness.  I agree that common sense is based on unproved axioms, but I think, in physics we didn't yet reach the common sense limits.

Whatever I'll not die more ignorant than any other man.  No one knows the truth, (if there is any truth).

Common sense will tell you not to read this article, but common sense is no more reliable guide in modern physics, so let's take a look at it.  It's worth reading (right or wrong? it doesn't matter).

Read this paper as an entertainment; don't take it seriously.  Read it as a fiction. I hope you'll enjoy it.  Have a good read.

"Some people say that only few men understood the theory of relativity.  And no one understands quantum mechanics. ..." Is it true? No problem this paper starts away from these two theories and far from any other theory.  We will start from an Euclidean space with "absolute time" and "absolute space", measurements will be given instantly (we'll not be limited by the information speed)

I know that it's practically useless in experimentation and practical calculations but it's necessary to explain my hypothesis.  Don't worry relativity; curved space-time; quantum mechanics.  All will be explained. (Almost J)

I begin this paper by a preliminary chapter to explain the choice of the Euclidean space and the absolute time, these four dimensions are our reference.  I prefer to call it absolute reference because it deals with absolute space and absolute time.

To understand my hypothesis you must first understand the "effervescence phenomenon" which is the first chapter subject; Then you must understand the new concepts according to this hypothesis (definition of space-time; energy; force etc) these definitions are given in chapter tow.

Before reading following chapters (III and IV) you must digest previous ones (I and II) not because it's difficult to understand but there's too many informations to catch.

Chapter III and IV contain a confrontation of my hypothesis with theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, Our theoretical basis is not deducible from quantum mechanics or from theory of relativity but it lead us to their interpretation.  It's rather an interpretation than a confrontation, we try to explain the measurement problem, the duality wave-particle, the wave function collapse the quantum entanglement and other physic's phenomena.

At the start of this chapter we agree that the continuous real line that we see is a creation of our brain and nervous system.  Everything we see and touch is made up of fundamental particles.

Our intuition about the time flow is also a creation of our brain.But we'll start here in a four absolute dimensions reference (three dimensions of the Euclidean space + absolute time): that means physical space-time will be studied in absolute space and absolute time.
In an Euclidean space, time and space are treated as distinct dimensions, while in the following definition of physical time and physical space it's hard to make a distinction between them.  Actually it's hard to make distinction between all properties of matter.

So please always remember: here time and space are absolute and events measurements are given instantly (we'll not be limited by information speed).

I think there's no need to give definition to this "absolute reference", it's an intuition everyone has, however I am afraid some physicists have forgot it.

If you don't need more details (and I am sure you don't) go straight ahead to chapter one.  But if you want to know my view of absolute space and absolute time read the following paragraphs.

Absolute space:
Absolute space corresponds to our intuitive understanding of space, it's the three dimensional Euclidean space.

The standard meter or simply meter, is defined as the distance traveled by light in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.  But information brought by light is not reliable.  This is due to the Structure of space-time and not to the light speed. To more details see my explanation of the uncertainty principle, You'll see that light speed is the most reliable but remain not totally reliable.

Otherwise, Space measurement needs a "distance standard" which means a piece of matter "a ruler" to compare its length with other elements length.  Because made up of matter the ruler will never remain the same (matter looses energy and gains energy, looses particles and gains particles constantly).
The "distance standard" is reliable only exactly at the moment T0 when it has been chosen as a "distance standard".  At a different moment (T ~ T0) the "distance standard" is no more the same, it changed.

The only way to have an absolute "distance standard" is to freeze the ruler exactly at the moment we choose it as a "distance standard". Freezing it, means no loss or absorption of energy no loss or absorption of particles no motion of atoms and even no motion inside atoms.
It will be a reliable ruler but not absolutely reliable because the space inside the ruler will be heterogeneous (see definition of physical space).

Absolute time:
The "conventional second" is defined as 9 192 631 770 oscillations of specified transition in Cs-133 atom. Atom means matter, and we said that matter is not stable it's constantly changing (matter looses energy and gains energy, looses particles and gains particles constantly). And you'll agree that Cs-133 atom oscillation is not the same since the big bang and until the big crunch.  It's always changing. This changing occurs even during the shortest moment.

The only way to have an absolute "time standard" of a second is to freeze that second oscillations sequence exactly at the moment we choose it as a "time standard" I mean to catch it like we catch a video sequence.
The Cs-133 atom will be isolated (no interactions with outside elements) and the oscillation sequence can be played as many times as we want, the same sequence will be seen each time with no change. That's the only way to have a reliable "time standard" but not absolute "time standard" because the time flow inside this "time standard" will be heterogeneous. (See definition of physical time).

Absolute reference point:
In addition to "time standard" and "space standard", we'll need an absolute reference point.  We know that every thing is moving even those who seem to have stability.

The only way to have an absolute reference point is to take the census of the universe even of other dimensions (see definition of many worlds).  The map of our world will correspond to the space-time map.
Once we have a map of universe in its multiple dimensions, then and only then any point can be taken as a reference point.

Absolute time and absolute space are a creation of our brain, of our intuition and here the use of the "absolute reference" made the explanation of this hypothesis very easy.

You have an idea now how clumsy is my explanation and how bad is my English.  But beyond this clumsiness there's an idea I count on your to catch (true or false doesn't matter) so please keep reading.

Matter is dissolving; it's annihilating.  Every particle (or body) is disintegrating into "ethons".  Ethons are the smallest particles in our hypothesis.
We can compare this phenomenon to an effervescent tablet.  Therefore our hypothesis will be called "the effervescence hypothesis".  (Keep in mind a picture of an effervescent tablet.)

Every particle disintegrates into pre-ethons before these pre-ethons disintegrate into ethons. We'll need pre-ethons to explain the elector-weak force and the strong nuclear force.

Density of ethons around a particle defines its effervescence characteristics: the general direction of ethons and their intensity (according to absolute time).  This relation between the density of ethons around a particle and the particle effervescence is not linear.

I don't see difference between density and intensity, perhaps because my vision is above space-time.  Whatever when I use density I am taking an instant picture, when I use intensity it's a sequence in absolute time.

The effervescence process creates a field of moving ethons.  This field can be visualized as a pattern of circular field lines surrounding the particle (or body).
The general direction of ethons lines is given according to the density of ethons out of the particle.  The general direction of ethons is from the highest density to the lowest density.

All space is filled with moving ethons.  Note that physical vacuum doesn't mean emptiness it's filled with ethons and other kinds of "matter".  In our hypothesis we make distinction between physical vacuum and the "absolute vacuum" in the Euclidean space.

The effervescence of tow particles (or bodies) in an area creates a third field of ethon which looks like a field created by one particle.  However each particle preserve its own ethon field in this system (a system includes many particles or bodies). There are no big complications arising in the many-body cases.

All properties of a particle are a result of the effervescence phenomenon.  A particle with no effervescence can't be detected, it have no mass no charge no energy no physical location. (See definitions of these properties below.)
No detection doesn't mean no existence. (See definition of many worlds).
It's amazing: what we observe is not matter itself, but its effect on space-time.

We have here new definitions of the main properties of matter and physical phenomenon according to the "effervescence phenomenon". These definitions make it hard to make distinction between all properties of matter.  Every thing seems to be a result of the "effervescence phenomenon".

We have one definition of physical time but we find three different flows of time.
The tow others can be considered as perceptions of time rather than time itself.

Here is the definition of "main physical time", I call it ambient time.
The ambient time (or physical time):
The "effervescence hypothesis" defines time in an area as the amount of ethons flowing per unit of absolute time through this area.  In other words it's the intensity of ethons current, this intensity defines the effervescence rhythm of a particle in this area.

If we take a picture, time flow in a given area is proportional to the amount of ethons in this area.  Our perception of this time in physical vacuum is possible only if we put a particle in it, because our perception of time is based on "atomic time".

Note: "intensity" is from an "absolute time" point of view.  You agree that we can't define physical time according to physical time.

The density of ethons decreases when we go forward the atom nucleus. Let's suppose that there are three main densities of ethons so three levels of "physical time" flow. (We choose three to explain the three fundamental forces: gravity, elector-weak force and strong nuclear force).  The three densities are in:

-The immediate surroundings of nucleus (area of strong nuclear interaction)
-Inside atoms.  (Source of elector-weak interaction).
-Outside atoms. (Area of gravity, but not exclusive area).

The particle time flow:
It's the amount of ethons loosed by a particle per unit of absolute time.  We can call it "particle's life". It's like an hourglass: lot of loosed ethons means short particle life, less loosed ethons means long particle life.
The effervescence rhythm of a particle is defined by the density of ethons around it.  And we said that physical time is the density of ethons.  So the particle life is defined by the physical time.
The atomic time: (or conventional time).
Conventional time is defined according to oscillations of specified transition in Cs-133 atom.  We can call it also atomic time. This time isn't true for subatomic elements.  Normal it's based on atoms.  It's the time for mechanic phenomena like clocks, and for biologic phenomena like humans.  In other words all phenomena were atoms are considered as the basic elements.

Atomic time is based on atom oscillations, so it's based on motion inside atoms.  And we'll see that physical motion is a creation and redistribution of "physical space-time" so a creation and redistribution of ethons (see definition of motion).

We'll see that motion is a result of the effervescence. And we said that the effervescence rhythm (=3D motion) of a particle is defined by the ethon density out of it, so the particle speed is defined by the density of ethons out of this particle, so of physical space-time.

Space is usually defined as a part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a set of dimensions in which objects are separated and located, have size and shape, and through which they can move.

Physical space is not continuous, it's made up of particles that we call ethons. The distance between tow physical points is the amount of ethons on the imaginary line between them.

Because ethons are in a perpetual motion the amount of ethon between tow absolute points is always changing.

We said above that all properties of a particle are the result of its effervescence.  In the physical space the particle itself doesn't exist.  The only thing we can see and measure is its effervescence. And according to our definition of physical space, the diameter of a particle is null because ethons are only around the particle.

We gave distinct definitions to physical time and physical space, and you've seen that it's hard to make distinction between them. Let's try now to give a definition of space-time according to the four-dimensional "absolute reference" (with absolute time and Euclidean space):

We can visualize Space-time as a sea of ethon's strings in constant evolution. The amount of ethons in each string defines at the same time the physical time duration and the physical length of this string.

Space-time can be seen as a geographic map of ethons (a four dimensional map in the absolute reference).

Motion occurs when bodies change their position in space with "time." In our hypothesis we describe motion in an absolute reference:

Motion seen in our four absolute dimensions is an addition of: -Absolute motion (body changes its position from an absolute point A to an absolute point B) which is the real motion, even we don't know if there is real motion.
-Physical motion which is a creation of space and redistribution of space (we said that physical space is made up of ethons, so it's a creation of ethons and a redistribution of these ethons with no real motion.

In other words if we have tow bodies A and B moving from each other. In fact there is no move it's the amount of ethons between them, which is changing.  It's the physical space between them that is changing.

This definition is neither for continuity nor for discontinuity.  The background of this apparent discontinuity (in our hypothesis) may be a real continuity or may be a real discontinuity.  We're far from giving the answer. Whatever, motion remain a miracle for me; I really don't understand it.

Energy is effervescence AND effervescence is energy, it's the loss of ethons by a body, it's a creation of space-time particles (ethons).

If you compare our definition of motion to this definition of energy you'll find that's hard to make distinction between energy and motion.

Energy is everywhere. Zero-energy doesn't exist, we said that all properties of a particle are a result of its effervescence, a particle without effervescence can't be detected, and is not located in our =AB world =BB it's in an other dimension. (See many-worlds definition).

Even physical vacuum is filled of energy (of moving ethons) but it's hard to detect it when space is devoid of matter.

The concept of energy that common people have can be defined as an acceleration of the effervescence rhythm of a body (its annihilation) compared to its effervescence in average conditions. In other words it's the energy human senses can detect (visible motion, heat, shape changing, etc).  Actually energy (and motion) is every where every time even at absolute zero degree.

Different bodies have different rhythms of effervescence in same conditions.  These rhythms can be deduced from the ability of this body to refract, diffract and absorb light and energy.

I'll give a short definition to force, I can't expand it more: Force is an effervescence modulation inside a system caused by: - An unstable physical system looking for stability - Or a physical system in stability trying to maintain its stability or to recover it.

Force is simply: The effervescence (rhythm) modulation in order to reach a stability, to maintain it or to recover it.

Whatever, it's useless to expand this definition.  Our vision of force isn't important to the hypothesis in its all.

"Mass of physical objects is the amount of matter they contain". That's the classic definition.

In our hypothesis, the body property we measure and call mass isn't the amount of matter but the inertia -resistance- of this body to loose ethons (in other words its effervescence).

Effervescence and by the way mass are not only related to the amount of matter but are also related to the structure of matter and may be to its absolute speed.

The four fundamental forces (as every thing else) are the result of the effervescence phenomenon, it's the same phenomenon with three variations according to ethon density variation in an area and to the variation of the way particles loose their ethons.

Usually Gravity is defined as the force of attraction.  But we'll see that it's not an attraction like we imagine it.

So what is gravity:

Gravity occurs between tow and more bodies.  We said that effervescence of tow particles in an area creates a third field of ethon which looks like a field created by one particle.  However each particle preserve its own ethon field in this system (a system includes many particles or bodies).  And we also said that direction of ethon current of a body is from the highest to the lowest density.

Attraction occurs when the SUM of the ethon's flow (of the third field) that is running out of the system PLUS the ethon flow created by each particle out of the system is BIGGER THAN ethon flow created inside the system.

A+B+C >A1+B1
A: ethons loosed by A in opposite direction to B (out of system).
B: ethons loosed by B in opposite direction to A (out of system).
C: ethons of the united field that are always running out of the system
A1: ethons loosed by A towards B (inside system).
B1: ethons loosed by B towards A (inside system).

In other words gravity occurs when the physical space (or space-time) created out of the system is bigger than inside the system.

When A+B+C =3DA1+B1

That means the smallest body is a satellite of the biggest.  Rotation occurs because the third field of ethons is in rotation.  And we said that motion is a creation and redistribution of ethons.  So it's the rotation of space time that make one body rotating around the other.

The explanation of why gravity is so weak is that ethon density between bodies is very low while the density of ethons inside the atom is extremely high.

When A+B+C <A1+B1
That means there is a third body, which changes the effervescence direction of the tow bodies and the system.

Electro-weak force:
The elector-weak force is the result of the way that particles loose their ethons.  So, what happens exactly:

We said that bodies (or particles) loose pre-ethons before these pre-ethons annihilate into ethons.  In this case the particle (or body) loose pre-ethons in a certain shape: pre-ethons are loosed in a way that a given amount of pre-ethons draw a circle.  The result of the annihilation of these pre-ethons with circle shape creates whirlwinds (of ethons) exactly as the explosion of hollow explosive charge (of dynamite).

There are tow directions of whirlwinds of ethons, let's say clockwise and anti clockwise.  These directions of rotation define the charge of a particle.  So why tow particles with the same charge are attracted to each other while tow particles with opposite charge are repulsed from each other.

To answer this question we must return to our example of tow particles in effervescence in the same area.  Remember: The effervescence of tow particles in an area creates a third field of ethon which looks like a field created by one particle.  However each particle preserve its own ethon field in this system (a system includes many particles or bodies).

The attraction or repulsion of the tow bodies depends on the evolution of the amount of physical space between them.  They are attracted if physical space created (and redistributed) inside the system is less than physical space created (and redistributed by ethon current) out of the system.

When tow whirlwinds (of ethons) with the same direction of rotation are put together they annihilate creating a big amount of ethons between the tow particles.  That's why tow particles with the same charge are repulsed from each other.

When tow whirlwinds (of ethons) with opposite directions of rotation are put together, their strength is boosted and by the way the ethon current that is running out of the system is boosted making the amount of ethons inside the system less important than the amount of ethons (produced and redistributed) out of the system.  That's why tow particles with opposite charge are attracted to each other.

Strong nuclear force:
Tow protons put together must create repulsion.  Why it's not the case in the nucleus: Protons loose pre-ethons in circle shape, the annihilation of the pre-ethons circles create whirlwinds (of ethons).  These whirlwinds are supposed to make a repulsion but when we add tow neutrons, these neutrons also loose pre-ethons making circles loosed by protons disappear (circle shape is disturbed by pre-ethons loosed by neutrons) and by the way whirlwinds disappear too. These whirlwinds disappear inside the nucleus not out of it.

Why there is attraction and not repulsion?
Repulsion; attraction; or rotation depends on the effervescence rhythm of a system.  This rhythm is related to distances; masses; charges etc.  This relation is not linear .  I can't say more.

Observation: All photons are whirlwinds, but not all whirlwinds are photons.

Space-time curvature is the contrast of ethons density.  Gravity to an area occurs when the ethon density there is higher than it is in the surrounding.

For example: Gravity of an object to earth is due to high density of ethons that surround earth (ethon density decreases when we go forwards an object) And we said that ethon current direction is from the highest density to the lowest density so this direction is deviated when the object comes near earth.  Earth and object are a system where the direction of ethons (of both earth and object) is out of the system.  That means space is increasing out of the system.  In addition to that, the flow of the third ethon field (the common field of earth and object) is going out of the system.  That means space between the tow objects is decreasing.  The combination of the tow effects creates the apparent attraction.

We said that ethon density decrease when we go forward the nucleus.  The contrast will be very high between an atom and its surrounding and even inside the atom itself.  That means space time isn't the same and that's the origin of some quantum strangeness.  And among them the uncertainty principle.

So what are origins of non-locality:
1- Trajectory of a particle inside an atom (in high ethon density) is a continuous succession of ethons.  But when we transpose this trajectory out of the atom (in lower ethon density) it will give us a discontinuous succession of ethon.
2- The high contrast inside the atom means space-time curvature.  That means we can see one object in tow positions at the same time.  It's similar to the effect of the sun gravity, which make us see one star in different positions at the same time.
3- The high contrast (of ethon density) makes informations don't arrive to us in the right chronological order, because it's deviated by (micro) space-time curvatures.

May be that's why an electron is seen as a cloud around the nucleus.

We'll try here to explain how light speed is constant.  We'll also explain the physical time contraction.  Relations are not linear, but to make the explanation easy will suppose them linear.

Let's start:
Light speed is constant in "physical space" according to the "absolute time".  That means light cross the same amount of ethons during an "absolute second".  Light speed isn't constant according to absolute space.

This constancy is due to:
- Absence of mass, this makes photons insensitive to background waves.  And may be light is the only thing that exist continuously. (See quantum entanglement)

Constancy of light speed:
When people or objects are traveling at a substantial fraction of the speed of light; the density of ethons out of the system changes making the density of ethons inside the system (inside rocket) changing too.

If rocket speed is 50% of LS; the amount of ethons inside a ruler becomes twice it is on earth.  If a ruler length on earth was X ethons, it will be 2X in the rocket.  However number of atoms that make the ruler remain the same.

So what changed? It's the ethon density inside the atom and in space between atoms that changed.  Their changing isn't proportional.  But the combination of the tow (atom and space between atoms) makes the length of the ruler (by ethons) twice its length on earth.

And we said that light speed cross ethons is constant, so light will take twice absolute time to cross the ruler.  But what happens to atomic time? (See definition of atomic time) In the other hand we said that ethon density inside atoms changed, so speed inside atoms also changed (see definition of motion).  Oscillations (are motion) inside atoms are twice slower.  That's why light speed according to atomic time remains the same.

This model can explain other physical phenomenon like: light refraction diffraction and absorption, dark energy=85 and many others but I think it's useless.  All I want is to introduce you to this view.

According to our hypothesis when traveling at a substantial fraction of the speed of light: life of a single particle (not system) must decrease, while atomic time contracts.

But experimentation shows that particle life is longer in an accelerator.  This can be explained by the fact that this particle (in very high speed) absorbs energy of whirlwinds that it cross inside the accelerator. (See whirlwinds in explanation of elector-weak and strong forces).  These whirlwinds crossed (and absorbed) in the accelerator, change the inertia -resistance- of the particle to effervescence (mass is inertia -resistance- to effervescence).  This increasing of life particle inside an accelerator is a kind of matter creation. (See matter creation).  Observation: all photons are whirlwinds but not all whirlwinds are photons.


There is tow ways to explain quantum entanglement: The first is short and too easy, but it doesn't allow a perfect Simultaneity.  The second is a little bit complicated but it allows (in given conditions) a perfect Simultaneity.

First explanation:
The space-time waves are crossed by waves like sound waves in sea waves.  When we prepare two particles in a single quantum state they are in the same diapason, that means one particle vibrates according to the vibration of the other particle.

This explanation presuppose sound-like waves inside space-time waves spreading faster than the speed of light, and the Simultaneity will not be perfect.  The second explanation is more interesting

Second explanation:
We said that all properties of a particle are a result of its effervescence, a particle without effervescence doesn't exist physically.

The effervescence process isn't continuos, it's discontinuous, the effervescence is a succession of short effervescence sequences.  We suppose that effervescence process is generated by background waves coming from the origin of the universe from the big bang explosion.  When a background wave hits a particle it releases one effervescence sequence of this particle and creates an echo of the background wave.  The background wave spreads in one way only, while its echo spreads in all directions forwards the particle.

Our world doesn't exist continuously (because the background waves and their echo are not everywhere every time).

When we prepare two particles in a single quantum state they are in the same diapason, that means one particle vibrates according to the vibration of the other particle.

The Simultaneity will be perfect from A to B if this background wave direction is from A to B.  It will be imperfect if the background wave is from B to A, in this case it's the echo of the background wave coming from A that brings the vibration to B, time of correlation will be an entire number of one effervescence sequence.  If we suppose that a single sequence of effervescence duration is a chronon, then time of correlation between A and B will be x choronon with x entire number.

We said that matter is annihilating into pre-ethons before these pre-ethons disintegrate into ethons.  The amount of ethons produced by the pre-ethons annihilation is not linear it's wavy.  That means the space-time is wavy.

In young experimentation interference fringes are made by space-time waves and because particles are moving in space-time their impact correspond to space-time waves impact.

The particle exhibits a wave-like behavior when space-time waves have some properties and it exhibits a particle-like behavior when space-time waves have other properties.
These properties can be:
- Space-time waves: length, height, frequency and direction.

The particle exhibits a particle-like behavior when:
 The sum of space-time waves in physical vacuum and space-time waves produced by the particle effervescence is null.  The sum is space-time waves with very long wavelength.  The sum is space-time waves with very short height.

The measurement problem:
Measurement means information, and information means a motion of something (matter or photons) from the measured area to the measurement instrument.
In other words measurement is a deviation at least of ethons.  This deviation perturbs space-time waves and by the way perturbs the sum of space-time waves of the particle and vacuum. This measurement can also change the effervescence rhythm of the particle.

Young experiment:
In young experiment the measurement disturbs synchronization between space-time waves coming through the tow pinholes, The interference fringes disappear and the interference fringes of the particle disappear also. The disturbance occurs only at the measurement, because it occurs only when real deviation (of ethons) occurs.

The synchronization between the tow pinholes disappear instantly, but it takes a while to appear again. We can say the same thing about the synchronization between space- time waves produced by a particle and space-time waves in vacuum it disappear instantly but it take a while to appear again. (a particle have an inertia -resistance- to change its effervescence rhythm)


We said that all properties of a particle are a result of its effervescence.  Particle without effervescence doesn't exist physically.

Our world is filled with particles without effervescence, without mass (mass is inertia =96resistance-of a body to effervescence) this lack of effervescence is due may be to: -The matter structure. -Or to it's absolute speed (in absolute space). -Or to its insensitiveness to the background waves we mention in quantum entanglement.

Whatever, when a photon cross (to avoid saying hits) this particle in given conditions, the photon energy changes the structure of this particle making it in effervescence state. The relation between energy and mass is in fact a relation between energy and the particle inertia-resistance- to effervescence.

This parallel world (or worlds) isn't well structured as ours, it's rather a pollution of our world than a parallel world. Real parallel worlds (structured like ours) can exist but not in the same absolute location we have. However this "pollution particles" have memory, and interference with our world that's may be the explanation of some paranormal phenomenon.

I titled this paper "a sketch" because it's an outline.  I hope you have understood this amateur view.
My goal is to share this idea (may be it's helpful in someway), You'll agree that I've a monstrous lack of knowledge in physics and mathematics, but my reasoning is logical, naive but logical.

I've been told that to be taken seriously a hypothesis must be crazy.  I tried to make it as crazy as possible, unfortunately I couldn't leave my common sense, sorry I need it

Certainly this paper is worthless but no one can say it's wrong.  If we really reached the common sense limits neither wrong nor right remains.

The only hope this paper has comes from the fact that mathematicians at a macroscopic and microscopic scale with existing technology can simulate this hypothesis. A further understanding will lead us to make predictions that can be verified by experimentation.

I hope this idea is enough explained and expound to pass judgement on. (As an amateur of course).
This paper doesn't need comments I am not able to understand them. But you can help me by giving address of physics amateur web site. And if you have some advises send them to:

Ahmed Ethon

PS: i've been told that unfortunatly ethons have mass and location.  but if you see my definition of space-time and mass you'll find that ethons have no mass and no physical location.

address supplied

Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2006 15:01:27 +0100

What is inertia?

Hi Anonymous Friend,
i) in ordinary talk it's "unwillingness to move";

ii) in a science definition - "In general, inertia is resistance to change.  In mechanics, inertia is the resistance to change in velocity or, if you prefer, the resistance to acceleration." - but note that in science `acceleration' is speeding up or down or any turning from a straight line;

iii) and in the real universe `inertia' is the response of protonic matter to the surrounding compressive force of UEF, or, if you like, zero-point energy or `quintessence'.

[here's an analogy - like an ant in jelly]

Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 01:56:09 +0100

I am an investigator, ex cartographer of the Argentine Naval Hydrography Service.

Given the good response I received from Geographic Institutes and Universities all arround the world such as:
Spain, Per, Italy, Bolivia, Germany, Colombia, Finland, USA, Russia, Canada, France, Venezuela, China, Panama, Nicaragua, Australia, Israel, Chile, England, Ecuador, Holland, Libano, Mexico, Poland, etc,
I write to inform you about my Web page on the Discovery of the precolumbus maps of America.

I presented this work during The IV Americanist Congress held out on the 4th and 5th of October of the 2001 in the University of El Salvador, Buenos Aires - Argentina.

In "Other Subjects" work presented/displayed in Fifth Congress of Americanistas

Made in the same University 14 and 15 of October of 2004.  (En Espaol) Yuchy "Marco Polo America and Cipan-guo", "America Saba Punt Egypt"

I would like to have your opinion on this new focus of ancient cartography.

Waiting for a prompt answer I remain sincerely yours.
Enrique Garca Barthe
TE - 00-54-11-4791-3616
Laprida 1607
CP - B1602EFC Florida
Buenos Aires - Argentina

Hello Enrique Garca Barthe,
Thanks for that info.  - Always been interested in cartography, ancient maps in particular, and your site looks most interesting - hope to spend much more time happily reading your stuff.

best regards

Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 00:15:57 -0400 (EDT)

(from Erthi)

Congress is about to sell out the Internet by letting big phone and cable companies set up toll booths along the information superhighway.

Companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending tens of millions in Washington to kill "network neutrality" -- a principle that keeps the Internet open to all.

A bill moving quickly through Congress would let these companies become Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow -- and which won't load at all -- based on who pays them more.  The rest of us will be detoured to the "slow lane," clicking furiously and waiting for our favorite sites to download.

Don't let Congress ruin the Internet -

Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:04:39 -0000
Thanks for that Michael,
and think you're right - that stuff wasn't written by analytic thinker.

Your professional interest in `lift' is understandable - in your area of study it has been _the_ controversial item.   Looking around, it seems some people are looking at insect flight for some of the answers `Longstanding Puzzle of Honeybee Flight Solved at Last'
Aerodynamics - Approaches to studying biological flight

and there's an interesting (fixed-wing) lift discussion at maybe try last one or two first, to get a feel for the POVs being expressed (there's a NASA man in there somewhere).

Hope to let you know if anything more interesting arises, and would appreciate it if you'd do the same for me.


Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:27:43 GMT

i would like to appologise on behalf on all of imperial for that idiot who wrote those messages.  [below]   I'm an avid reader of this site and love my university, i hate people who give a bad name.

After reading those rants i decided to read your articles on evolution and found them very interesting.  I'm not in the biology department, so don't have a great knowledge of the subject, but was very intruiged.  It makes a lot of sense.

I am in fact an aeronautics student.  I was wondering if you had any theories on flight, because even we don't truly know why lift actually happens.

I would also like to say tht i don't even believe that crackpot was from imperial, he probably just wrote the name of a prominant science university.


Three anonymous `academic' mails (maybe).


Hi Erthia

There would seem to be an active facility in the NEW BRAIN which can over-ride the default settings of the OLD BRAIN.  And this facility clearly has abilities, as you note, to both protect from (_and_ to initiate) action at the microbial level and at the cell nucleus level (human physiology being a joint effort with our microbe helpers).  Strong-minded folk seem to have more chance of enabling / controlling this facility, although, as we've discussed, "faith" alone may achieve almost same results.

And "belief" can have another evolutionary effect, where food taboos have been historically useful in protecting from disease.  Hence, maybe, preponderance of "strong believers" in hot countries - their ancestors maybe had a slight edge by sticking to taboos rigidly; only for "belief" reasons rather than logic.

As you say, switching on "aggression-mode" can be a strongish protection, and hence some may have learned to depend on that.  Think it breaks down eventually though, since we all need to re-connect with `real world' at some time, and the more often the better (think most hooked on "aggression" don't re-connect - hence psychotic states found in authority types).

Maybe the "medical professionals" could catch-up with reality - if they weren't so embedded in `control / domination' psychoses of their own.


PS have to admit using that "aggression mode" latterly during military life - though kept a private space, as often as possible, for two things:- nature (mountain climbing or just rambling - alone), and female company - to `keep my feet on the ground' so to speak.

Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 07:24:04 -0500 (EST)

Hi Ray, honor to hear from you.
Both brains respond equally violently to the illness-inducing shock or `breach'; the newbrain reacts by REMOVING cells, the old by ADDING them.  Removal is ''ulceration'', adding is ''cancer''.  Each in its time was deemed the most appropriate way to strengthen an organism for facing the specific crisis.  For example, removal of cells inside a pulmonary vein CERTAINLY ''increases the blood supply'' for a territorial or partner-sexual conflict.

It's just that our thinking wouldn't quite agree with this newbrain evo-inbuilt programming, about how it's done! In the healing phase-- ie after the life-problem is remedied, the 2 celtas reverse themselves: a formerly ulcerating [ie newbrain] lesion will generate new cells to repair itself, while a former neoplasm will break down and be eliminated.  The healing phase of a cortically linked celta is almost always attacked by humans as an ''especially malignant'' cancer.

Both types of healing are microbe-aided.  [Again mistaken by the `healing' arts to be `invaders'.] The newbrain creates viruses, the oldbrain fungi.  Many organs have tissues that arise from more than one of the 3 embryonic layers.  In such organs, the reparative microbes are chiefly bacteria.  Leave 'em alone, and they'll go home! A person of course does better in all cases, with raw organic mineral-rich food and water, plus the all-vital emotional support of pack members; one reason that I often regard the real illness as poverty, divorce from Nature.  Even Hamer recognizes that health goes with wealth.

I think you're right, the key is `breach'.  The person or animal's ''faith'' or sense of wellbeing-- a demonstrably physical 4D energy field around the organism, is normally intact.  It's when a ''sharper'' or more driven energy-form pierces this field, that all hell breaks loose and the brains respond the way they do.  Or I think, the whole being responds, not just the brain.

That target pattern is a record or imprint of a whole-body event, not the event itself.  What all beings seem to have in common at the moment of DHS, is JUST as you say: helplessness.  Isolation and helplessness.

I like to see it as non-aggression: immobilization and BEING DONE TO, instead of doing.  I was even heading letters for awhile, `Aggressors don't get sick!'.  And in this sense, they don't.  What I think accounts for illness in our parasitic, predacious powelite is their [1] bad conscience/paranoia, plus [2] the salvos they unleash AGAINST EACH OTHER.  Plus the dysfunctionality imparted by early primal pain, which I GUARANTEE you is part of the royals' systematic, earliest conditioning.  It's clear they go extinct, but just as with wolfpacks, the new dominators just keep on a-comin'.

Here's a CT scan of the newbrain reacting with paralysis, to the guy's wife hurling her wedding ring at his feet.

The newbrain arose embryonically with, and hence controls, our body's motor and sensory functions.  These with the exquisitely sensitive epithelium and periosteum [''bone skin''], are all recent additions evolutionwise.  [The embryo recaps beginning as a simple submersible tube with both input and output at the same end.  The nerve endings of the ''tube'' or annelid are stamped in the brainstem.  The organs and crises it handles are best reflected in a sea-worm. -- Flow of water; identifying, capture, utilisation and elimination of food substances; recognizing waterborne vibrations; and primitive repro.]

I'm fascinated with your demo that the powelite psychopathy maps onto brain evolution-- or DEVOlution, and why.  Privilege IS dysfunctional! This time they've got so MUCH destruction and cripplement [ie a thought-controlling microchip] at their weakened fingertips, I wonder whether there will be any happy throngs to make it through.  Hope we can continue this most fruitful dialog.

Erthia 5mar06

> "PS - it's not certain that `cognitive confidence' must be well-founded.  That is, simple faith - without intellectual knowledge - might well be sufficient."

Thanks for listing Arthur Ellison's classic ''flowerbowl'' experiment.  The laws of the universe seem such that we can never bring it to the attention of the Unamazed Randi.
Warmest, E.

Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:10:43 -0000

Hi Erthia Sahn,

Thanks - have a feeling any disease-protection might come from a person's sense of `awareness' or `cognitive confidence' allowing the NEW BRAIN to take charge of brain's response to physical or psychic shock, rather than the OLD BRAIN doing it, as would be the case in a person who felt `unaware', `helpless' or indeed `hopeless'.

This might apply even where the irritation / damage stimuli are long-lasting, or environmental.

best regards

PS - it's not certain that `cognitive confidence' must be well-founded.  That is, simple faith - without intellectual knowledge - might well be sufficient.

[PPS - Yup, get bored with `punctuation' sometimes - thanks for reminder - RD]

Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 02:45:18 GMT

Dearest Ray:
Have you picked up on the discoveries of Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer? I wish they were mine, but all I can send you is the best links and my own writeup, plus brain scans from his original textbook.  These aren\'t available on the Net, and clinch his case.

What I need help with is understanding the "DHS" -- the moment of shock which simultaneously imprints itself on the brain, representative organ, and psyche, then developing into disease.  There are only 2 responses the organ will make! If its tissues arise embronically in the NEW BRAIN, the response will be ulceration.  If it arises in the OLD BRAIN, the response will be cancer.

Either of these conditions will continue until the situation which caused the shock is remedied.  At that point the process reverses, until normal function returns.  The scans allow this whole sequence to be monitored, by watching its multilayer "burst" in the brain.  This burst, called the HH, looks like a target pattern around the ! nerve endings of the affected organ or tissue.  It goes through precise visible changes corresponding to the "unresolved" and "resolved" phases of the illness.  The identical process and progression is seen in scans with animals.

Your excellent sleuthing about brain function and the very NON obvious workings of perception, might throw light on exactly HOW the DHS gets imprinted.  I know from "shocking" experience, lol, that the whole situation is involved-- it's 4 dimensional, if you wish, and coming in all around you, at the moment of jolt.  It's not through the eyes or "mind" at all-- you can feel it through your whole skin.  The feeling is palpable.

This is no mere "idea", "emotion", or symbolism.  Hamer has kicked the slats out from under "psychosomatic medicine", and also most treatment modalities.  It gets clearer and clearer that they're all based on fantasies, about the real nature of illness.  There are even frequency boxes which can "Git them bowgs!" or Git Dat Pain or make an organ stop cold in proliferating its cells.  But users seem never to have asked why they're there.

I think you could get at all that. 

Your research pointing up the power elite's genetic brain traits and deterioration seems brilliant and original!

And PS, it's ok to end your sentences with a period.

Erthia Sahn

Another download request

Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2006 07:21:36 GMT

please provide more and more about mechanics in physics so i will be very thanful to u for this kindness

Hi, can try maybe - have you looked at `Inertia, Mass, Forces & Gravity' pages yet?

Hi Graham,
Good to hear from you - just now thinking of your area of expertise when reading today's mail foretelling collapse of US economy (& WW III of course) now that China (maybe in hand with Russia) has decided to scrap the dollar.

Re: Red Rain
Yes - seen a few reports and just now had a mail from a lady who quoted your reference plus the `world science' or `science week' article -

If carbon and oxygen are the most significant cell materials, that's in line with the most common elements found in deep space: CHON - carbon, hydrogen (in the `rain') oxygen + nitrogen (maybe also in the `rain')

PLUS deep space has clouds of molecular materials - significantly the 20 or so amino acids necessary for life on Earth! - which could explain the "organic" nature of the cells.

Got that last from interesting book maybe called "Stardust" by John Gribbin which closely examines the nuclear processes and supernova events that make up the elements (which we need) seen around the universe.  Seems that `organic' stuff is amazingly abundant in regions of deep space.

I'm slightly inclined to agree with your authors' linking of the rain with the meteorite explosion - since the "solids" (not hydrogen or oxygen in gaseous form) would need a casing to protect them entering the atmosphere, and the explosion would explain the elliptical dispersal zone.

Amusing to see some reflex disapproval from selected "experts" - but think more thoughtful types are even now working on this; Hoyle's already established the solid `science' behind it - and Hoyle was a real expert.

[You might be interested in the written record of Charles Fort - compiled at although his actual books are also available at a number of sites (Book of the Damned? etc), they're extensive but a bit disorganized maybe for modern tastes.]


Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2006 10:20:15 GMT

Hi Ray
Long time without talking to you, but have been busy.  Have moved to Tauranga - warmer and nice beaches.

My son sent this to me.
Have you seen it?

Kind regards

Friday, June 02, 2006 17:44:52Hello Dr Montanari,
Hope you are well in Azerbaijan?

Have read many critical reviews of `dark matter' and `dark energy' recently, and most seem to be critical of the "standard model".

Please let me know how the writing goes - that sounds good.

best wishes

Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 11:21:51 GMT

Hi Ray,
I am now in Baku, Azerbaijan.

Keep trying to read Perceptions, but am lost somewhere in the middle.  And I am busy writing my own thing.  But hope you are well.....

Have you come across ?

Best regards

Dr. Mills\' Book
"The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Quantum Mechanics" November 2005 Edition

Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 06:30:40 +0100

Dear Ray Dickenson ;
I have constructed a new mechanics.Its name is Vortex Mechanics.I think that we will need a lot of mechanical systems for explaining on physics.Because every mechanical system is valid in the self conditions.

The speed of local effect is V(L) = [0;C] .  Namely this effects are realizing 0 km / s with the speed of light 300.00 km / s.  Local effects are near the physical space.We have local effects for every fields.  For example tensoral fields are local mechanics.We have tensoral fields for every fields.
The speed of local effect is V(L) = (C;infinite ).  Namely this effects are realizing 300.000 km / s with infinite Nonlocal effects are far away from physical space.We have nonlocal effects for every fields.  Newtonian and quantum mechanical fields are nonlocal mechanics.They are realizing on the speed of light.  For example gravitational fields are realizing faster than speed of light.
Et^2 = En^2 + Ec^2
Et is Total Energy
En is Nonlocal energy
Ec is Local energy
Et = h / t
h is planck \'s constant
Ec = Ek = P.C
P is momentum
C is speed of light
Vn is nonlocal speed
Vn > C
Vc is local speed
Vc =< C
Et^2 = En^2 + Ec^2
( h / t ) ^2 = [Ec.Vn /C/( Vn^2 / C^2 -1 )^( 1 / 2 )]^2+[ Ep ]^2
( h / t ) ^2 = [ Ec. Vn / C / ( Vn^2 / C^2 -1 )^( 1 / 2 ) ] ^ 2 + [ P.C ] ^ 2

Et^2 = En^2 + Ec^2
Et is Total Energy
En is Nonlocal energy
Ec is Local energy
Et = h / t

h is planck \'s constant Ec = Ep = potential energy
P is momentum
C is speed of light
Vn is nonlocal speed
Vn > C
Vc is local speed
Vc =< C

V = G.m1.m2 / r = Ep
V = potential energy for Gravitational Force
Ep = Ec
Et^2 = En^2 + Ec^2
( h / t ) ^2 = [ Ec. Vn / C / ( Vn^2 / C^2 -1 )^( 1 / 2 ) ] ^ 2 + [ Ec ] ^2
( h / t ) ^2 = [ Ec. Vn / C / ( Vn^2 / C^2 -1 )^( 1 / 2 ) ] ^ 2 + [G.m1.m2 / r ] ^ 2

V = k.q1.q2 / r = Ep
V = potential energy for Electrical Force
Et^2 = En^2 + Ec^2
Et = h / t h is planck\'s constant
( h / t )^2 = [Ec . Vn / C / ( Vn^2 / C^2 - 1 ) ^ (1/2)]^2 + (Ec)^2
( h / t )^2 = [Ec Vn / C / ( Vn^2 / C^2 - 1 ) ^ (1/2)]^2 + ( k.q1.q2 / r )^2

V = f.g1.g2 / r = Ep
V = potential energy for Magnetical Force
Et^2 = En^2 + Ec^2
Et = h / t h is planck\'s constant
( h / t )^2 = [Ec . Vn / C / ( Vn^2 / C^2 - 1 ) ^ (1/2)]^2 + (Ec)^2
( h / t )^2 = [Ec Vn / C / ( Vn^2 / C^2 - 1 ) ^ (1/2)]^2 + (f.g1.g2 / r)^2

V = Ep
V = potential energy for Weak Force
Et^2 = En^2 + Ec^2
Et = h / t h is planck\'s constant
( h / t )^2 = [Ec . Vn / C / ( Vn^2 / C^2 - 1 ) ^ (1/2)]^2 + (Ec)^2
( h / t )^2 = [Ec Vn / C / ( Vn^2 / C^2 - 1 ) ^ (1/2)]^2 + (V)^2

V = Ep
V = potential energy for Nuclear Force
Et^2 = En^2 + Ec^2
Et = h / t h is planck\'s constant
( h / t )^2 = [Ec . Vn / C / ( Vn^2 / C^2 - 1 ) ^ (1/2)]^2 + (Ec)^2
( h / t )^2 = [Ec Vn / C / ( Vn^2 / C^2 - 1 ) ^ (1/2)]^2 + (V)^2
Accretion disc jets: Why do the accretion discs surrounding certain astronomical objects, such as the nuclei of active galaxies, emit radiation jets along their polar axes?

Accelerating universe: Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating, as we have observed? What is the nature of the dark energy driving this acceleration? If it is due to a cosmological constant, why is the constant so small, yet non-zero? Why isn\'t it huge, as predicted by most quantum field theories, or zero, as predicted by supersymmetry?

Amorphous solids: What is the nature of the transition between a fluid or regular solid and a glassy phase? What are the physical processes giving rise to the general properties of glasses?

Arrow of time: Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past, resulting in the distinction between past and future and the second law of thermodynamics?

Black holes: Do they really exist? If not, then what are the ultracomapact supermassive object that have been observed and what physics governs them?

Baryon asymmetry: Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the universe?
Cosmic inflation: Is the theory of cosmic inflation correct, and if so, what are the details of this epoch? What is the hypothetical inflaton field giving rise to inflation?
Dark matter: What is the nature of the material observed via only its gravitational effects (for example, in the Galaxy rotation problem)?
Fusion power: Is it possible to construct a practical nuclear reactor that is powered by nuclear fusion rather than nuclear fission?
Gamma ray bursts: What is the nature of these extraordinarily energetic astronomical objects?
Gravitational waves: Is it possible to construct a device to detect the gravitational waves emitted by, for example, a pair of inspiralling neutron stars?
GZK paradox: Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are impossibly high, given that there are no sufficiently energetic cosmic ray sources near the Earth, and cosmic rays emitted by distant sources should have been absorbed by the cosmic microwave background radiation?
High-temperature superconductors: Why do certain materials exhibit superconductivity at temperatures much higher than around 50 kelvins?
Magnetic monopoles: Are there any particles that carry "magnetic charge", and if so, why are they so difficult to detect?
Pioneer anomaly: What causes the apparent residual Sunward acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft?
Proton decay: Do protons decay? If so, then what is their half-life?
Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) in the non-perturbative regime: The equations of QCD remain unsolved at energy scales relevant for describing atomic nuclei.  How does QCD give rise to the physics of nuclei and nuclearconstituents?
Quantum computers: Is it possible to construct a practical computer that performs calculations on qubits (quantum bits)?
Quantum gravity: How can the theory of quantum mechanics be merged with the theory of general relativity to produce a so-called "theory of everything"? Does our present understanding of the gravitational force remain correct at microscopic length scales? What verifiable predictions does any theory of quantum gravity make?
Quantum mechanics in the correspondence limit: Is there a preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics? How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wavefunction collapse, give rise to the reality we perceive?
Spintronics: Is it possible to construct a practical electronic device that operates on the spin of the electron, rather than its charge?
Standard Model parameters: What gives rise to the Standard Model of particle physics? Why do its particle masses and coupling constants possess the values we have measured? Does the Higgs boson predicted by the model really exist? Why are there 3 classes of particles in the Standard Model? Is the Standard Model reality, a good approximation to reality or fatally flawed?
String theory: Is string theory, or superstring theory, or M-theory, or some other variant on this theme, the final "theory of everything", a step on the road or a blind alley?
Supersymmetry: Is supersymmetry a symmetry of Nature? If so, how is supersymmetry broken, and why? Can the new particles predicted by supersymmetry be detected?
Turbulence: Is it possible to make a theoretical model to describe the behavior of a turbulent fluid (in particular, its internal structures)?

We must develop different solutions for this physics problems.

Ozan Hasimi Oktar

Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 10:11:46 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Thank you so much for your precession page.The graphic of the globe is superb.  I used it in a paper I wrote back in 2001 looking at precession as a basis for theology.  I finally presented it at the recent Grafton Festival of Philosophy Science and Theology.  The paper should be available at

Please email me at *** if you would like a word version of the paper
with best regards,
Robert Tulip

Any reader wanting that Word version - please use "Mail Perceptions" form (don't forget an address)

Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 13:23:44 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Polar jets and several other mysteries are explained in my pamphlet, "Applied Cosmic Electrostatics" presently on sale at Alibris.

The pamphlet also explains ionospheric shift, stellar fusion and its regulation, generation of negative cosmic bias, dark matter, polar jets, atmospheric high voltage production (for lightning), cosmic acceleration, red sprites and blue jets.

In all humility
A. D. Miller

Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 23:25:09 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Can anybody help me find a coherent explanation of UEF theory?
I failed to find any page starting from which I could unfold the UEF theory.

Understand - maybe best go to earlier two replies to same Q

Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2005 22:13:51 +0100 (GMT/BST)

Of all the criticizing on the internet, science is avoided, as if it could do no wrong or were above public accountability.  The fact is, science is in worse shape than other institutions, and precisely because it escapes public accountability.  Here's an example that is provable.

I have unquestionable mathematical proof that energy has been misdefined.  It means about ninety percent of physics has errors in it.  No one has been able to produce honest criticism of it.  I'll describe the test here and link to the math below.

A rocket uses twice as much fuel to stop or accelerate a 4 kg object dropped 1 meter as a 1 kg object dropped 4 meters.  Force times distance is proportional to mv for an accelerating mass.  Both objects acquire the same mv, but not with the same fuel use.

Therefore, both masses do not have the same energy; the rocket does not transform energy in proportion to mv; mv is not kinetic energy; and a gallon of fuel does not produce a consistent amount of mv.

A rocket uses the same amount of fuel to stop or accelerate a 4 kg object dropped for 1 second as a 1 kg object dropped for 4 seconds.  Force times time is proportional to mv for an accelerating mass.  Both objects acquire the same mv and used the same amount of fuel.

Therefore, both masses have the same amount of energy; the rocket transforms energy in proportion to mv; mv is kinetic energy; and a gallon of fuel produces a consistent amount of mv.

The math is shown here:

Gary Novak

Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005

Plea - for an honest lawyer?

Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:53:46 +0100 (GMT/BST)

try the reality given by TheNewAtom.doc, or in answer to Einstein's lament on lack of understanding sbout radiation, 1UnificationofEnergy_Force.doc

Sorry folks - don't have a way to get past that block on server.

Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 16:53:11 GMT

Sushil Yadav on EMOTION

Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:34:13 GMT

I'm a retired professor of geology (Syracuse Univ.).  Here's something I just sent to a listserv of earth Science teachers I belong to.

Earth's precession is often compared with the wobbling of a top.  The comparison is accurate, but there's a problem: a top precesses in the direction of spin, whereas the Earth precesses opposite to spin.  Long ago, I devised a simple demo using a gyroscope (a fancy top most kids have played with) to show why...

First I'd set the spinning gyroscope upright to show that the axis wobbles (precesses) in the direction of spin: if the gyroscope spins counterclockwise (like the Earth, viewed from above the north pole), the wobbling will also be counterclockwise.  This, of course, is the gyroscope's response to gravity's trying to "pull it over."

But nothing is trying to topple the Earth! In fact, the gravitational tug of the sun and moon* on Earth's inclined equatorial bulge tries to do just the opposite: to "right" the Earth, pulling our bulging equator more nearly into the plane of the solar system.  Since the forces are opposite to those experienced by a spinning top, precession is "backwards."

To illustrate, I'd next hang the (slightly inclined!) gyroscope from a string so that gravity would try to straighten it up, rather than topple it.  Result: "backwards" precession, just like Earth's.. 

Bryce Hand

*And -- to a far lesser extent -- other bodies in the solar system.

Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:03:21 +0000
Hello Graham,
Thanks for the tip, that UrbSurv page is interesting, as always.

Just checked and yes, eastern edge of Indo-Australian Plate (Indian Ocean - Nicobar / Andaman) could be seen to be "opposite" to eastern edge of Nazca Plate (Pacific - Ecuador) - based on map references.

One could interpret alignments (see & checkalign.html) for the two periods as being 1) gravitational or 2) tidal or 3) inertial pulse (UEF) passing through the Earth during the last week of Dec and again mid Jan.

Whichever way, there _would_ be effects on opposing side of the globe: (probably as) case 1) a pull and opposing drag effect, case 2) two opposed `tidal' bulges, case 3) low-inertia track (weakened structure) directly thru the Earth.

If you want `automatic' long range forecasting of say, alignment of Earth and Moon with Venus, Mars, Jupiter & Saturn (the important ones), you could set up SOLEX (intro - or maybe "Distant Suns (lite)" (intro - but haven't tried that last one yet.

However, as you say, the unknowns - dimension of fault & accumulated stress - are enough to produce scenarios from mild to really earth-shaking even for an `average' alignment.

best of luck

Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 08:18:25 GMT

Hi Ray Have you looked at the Urbansurvival site lately? He has a "thing" about earth movements.  Have you seen anything else to substantiate this?

I have asked our local gurus about the apparent lift in larger no of "big' events, but no response.  I guess it will have them a bit concerned as the fund is only $4bn and a biggie on the Wellington SW fault could cost up to $14m - but a really big one off Ecuador would be pretty bad - the tsunami would probably destroy our house!

Modelling probabilities (as we have done for our Earthquake insurers) is useless in the scenarios being talked about! and see the links to the last few weeks comments

Kind regards

[ 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 © 2006 Ray Dickenson

this page


Share This