COPY OF APPLICATION TO NESTA (deletions ??????)

Application One

1N/A

* * *

2.1

Raymond Dickenson

Address: ????????

Tel/fax: ?????????

* * *

2.2

N/A

* * *

2.3

Yes

* * *

2.4

N/A

* * *

2.5

Now: Research, analysis and presentation

previous: Data Networking

previous: Study (Postgraduate / C.o.E.) ???????????

previous: M.o.D.????????? Cable & Wireless / Saudi Arabia

previous: Military. ????????

* * *

2.6

Accountant: ***********

* * *

2.7

N/A

* * *

2.8

Sole Trader: Information Consultant

* * *

2.9

No

* * *

3.1

Development of UEF Theory and applications.

* * *

3.2

Biological sciences

Chemistry and related sciences

Commercial processes

Earth sciences

Maths and computer science

Physical sciences

Retail product

* * *

3.3

To further develop the UEF Theory by means of data and experimental research.

* * *

3.4

Work began on the UEF Theory, during 1995/6, when academics were backing 'Quantum' theories and 'Relativity' of various types. Now, even after NASA's 1998 admission of anomalous effects (explainable only by UEF), the moribund establishments remain devoted to "action at a distance" theories of gravity and electromagnetism.

* * *

3.5

UEF Theory - outlined at www.perceptions.couk.com/UEFindex.html and links - explains combined gravity and electromagnetism (Einstein's dream and Feynman's despair).

It is currently the only theory of its kind that adequately explains the various gravitational and electromagnetic anomalies - the two-slit experiment, NASA's extra gravity, the missing magnetic monopole and so forth.

Confirmatory experiments have been outlined but even so certain narrow academic elites cannot contemplate the UEF Theory's existence. This refusal seems rooted in a failure to understand the basic physics - see www.perceptions.couk.com/blinded.html and links.

* * *

3.6

NASA "may be able to test" one UEF experiment this year, but might surreptitiously be including another in a subsequent payload - see www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/footnotes3.html#Relativity and links.

The UEF Theory was submitted to several British government departments (and repeatedly rejected by civil service scientists), from 1996 onwards. These rejections, with more appreciative responses from some eminent real scientists, give the provenance of the UEF Theory.

The science establishment - excepting ???????? - seems not to have the ability or flexibility to make the conceptual leap to the UEF Theory of "direct causative action."

* * *

3.7

Yes

Work on the UEF Theory - initially provoked by irritation with faulty mathematical claims from Cambridge - progressed with the help of data gathered from physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry, archeology and even farther afield.

These data are normally viewed in narrow professional isolation.

A cross-disciplinary approach therefore opened the way to the UEF Theory, which now offers applications in the fields of energy (power generation), biology (fertility, consciousness and cellular reactions), propulsion and communication. That is, in addition to being a physics breakthrough - a viable T.O.E or G.U.T.

* * *

4.1

Developed to trial stage.

* * *

4.2

Now at the trial stage of the UEF Theory, I had early assistance from mathematician Gerard McKay (Oxford) of Shropshire. Otherwise, and since, I worked alone, using personal savings.

Originally a rational explanation of gravity, the Theory emerged as probable cause of the Effects erroneously termed Forces by physicists.

Later, when UK submission channels* (of UEF Theory) had been exhausted, there came the 24/9/98 admission of gravitational anomalies experienced by NASA spacecraft.

[* Due to rejection of the Theory by British government departments I was forced to publish it at www.perceptions.couk.com/UEFindex.html and all links]

So my UEF explanation of NASA's anomalies went to Los Alamos along with forecasts and reasons. NASA acknowledged - and checked correct (presumably*) - then sulked in silence.

[* Some think NASA, like the M.o.D before them, played for time - hiding results of my forecasts while maneuvering to hijack the discovery - see 3.5, 3.6 & 3.7 above ]

That NASA sulk intensified when my July 1999 recommendations - for eclipse experiments of Dr. David Noever (NASA) - forecasting a) gyroscopic evidence of UEF (disproving the Principle of Relativity), and b) post-eclipse tectonic movements - were (tragically) confirmed.

* * *

4.3

No

* * *

4.4

No

* * *

4.5

N/A

* * *

4.6

Originality and provenance of the basic UEF Theory have been established..

* * *

4.7

A scientific theory per se cannot be patented.

* * *

5.1

At present I have published the basic UEF Theory and outlines of some confirmatory experiments, along with notes of evident UEF applications and devices in the following areas: energy (power generation), biology (fertility, consciousness and cellular reaction, cellular alteration and protection), propulsion and f.t.l mass-detection, communication and power transmission.

This was forced on me to prevent the hijacking (and covert misuse), of the UEF Theory and its more easily derived applications. Even those can give large socioeconomic benefits and control of a great deal of energy.

The Theory, the experiments and those applications can be seen at http://www.perceptions.couk.com/UEFindex.html and all links.

That published information is now being discreetly used* by international organizations in areas including the following: IT, energy & power, motor & propulsion, aviation, military, aerospace and astronautics, and academic research.

Evasion of prestige-damage by academic and bureaucratic elites will delay official announcements of the UEF Theory but that will not interfere with pragmatic development* of some of the Theory's powerful uses by the above mentioned groups and organizations.

[* Confirmation of their interest and purposes can be seen in the Internet request logs for the above noted URL and its linked web pages. These logs are available in original .zip format from me, perhaps independently from the ISP and possibly from certain other organizations. ]

I intend to give the British government, via NESTA, an opportunity to reclaim the ground lost by earlier bureaucratic incompetence (or corruption). There are unguessed, far-reaching and powerful uses of UEF Theory available to any organization with a flexible, imaginative and informed research facility.

Therefore, I propose that NESTA should arrange an agreement, between a competent appointed organisation and myself, to pursue that UEF research.

* * *

6.1

It is concluded that NESTA alone, with its duty of impartiality, might avoid contamination with prior departmental incompetence and, by suspending bureaucratic jealousies, prove capable of supporting this project.

The benefits include international credibility and prestige, worldwide socioeconomic improvements, and long-term goodwill and incalculable financial returns to the supporters, investors and research organizations.

* * *

6.2

NESTA - Unknown - see 5.1 above

OTHER - Unknown - see 5.1 above

* * *

6.3

Unknown - see 5.1 above

* * *

6.4

N/A

* * *

6.5

Unknown - see 5.1 above

* * *


Front Cover Return to "PhySci Index"

Front Cover `Perceptions' the front cover & "contents"


PRIVACY POLICY

Map IP Address



Share This

FACEBOOK TWITTER GOOGLE+ TUMBLR PINTEREST REDDIT EMAIL