Perceptions updateIndex of PerceptionsPerceptions site mapsearch Perceptions
UEF Theory
comment + criticism welcome
`Perceptions' ITEM
Copyright © 2009 Ray Dickenson
Welcome - Chinese Peace - Arabic
Dream - Russian Soul Duty - Sanskrit

Inside-Out

Conventional scientists
- and the media -
get it wrong again,
but maybe it's just as well


26 July '00 - "Leading Edge" - a misnamed BBC 'science' slot carried by the elite BBC Radio Four channel - recorded the "Ask A Science Question" program

But we didn't expect any 'leading edge' science questions - or answers






Why?

Because the BBC, like most English media, is in the business of supporting the establishment. And that means not rocking the boat





A few years ago the BBC solemnly assured us - students, scientists and all - that "gravity travels at the speed of light." This was in a similar "Ask a science question" program





So ?

So, it's wrong, as we at "PERCEPTIONS" pointed out

See Tom Van Flandern's "speed of gravity", and also radiation - 1st one for background, 2nd for details





But we knew why the BBC had placed itself in that uncomfortable position

And why they're still saying that about 'gravity.' Because they daren't rock the boat

Although most genuine scientists now realize that 'Quantum' rules and Einstein's 'Relativity' are both 'incomplete' (that's a polite scientist's way of saying 'wrong' ), the text books still say they are right. Therefore the pseudo-scientists - who merely parrot the text-books without real comprehension - have to blindly repeat 'Relativity' rules and 'Quantum' speculations as if they were meaningful

And the BBC - media generally - prefer the pseudo-scientists. They're more malleable - ie. publicity hungry






Is 'English Science' second-rate?

Science is science. We do think the growth of elitism since the early '80s has reduced honesty in English scientists. And if you don't believe that, here's the route:-





"A major problem ... is that the educated classes tend to be the children of the wealthy, with a vested interest in the status quo, and are unaccustomed either to working with their hands or to challenging conventional wisdom" Carl Sagan in "Cosmos"

And here's the eventual destination - incompetence






So what happened this year ? _ _ Nothing

That is to say -"no leading-edge Science." The BBC - probably still smarting from the last humiliation - carefully arranged a deadly dull session of boring pedestrian questions with boring pedestrian answers





No 'leading-edge' Science - just dull puerile stuff that the BBC 'science' staff probably reckoned was "safe"

Or so they thought

But their masterpiece of puerility was an arranged question about "unlocking" the energy in matter - in a pencil, as was coyly quoted

And the 'experts' went along with this once-trendy (but now oh-so-dated) expression, saying we would someday be able to "unlock" the energy "locked-up" in matter






So what's wrong with that ? - Scientist have been using that phrase, or similar, for years ?

Yes and it's wrong

Just like that guff about the speed of gravity






It started way back, when scientists blindly feeling their way in studies of radiation, and in later studies of atomic reaction, saw what they thought was "emission" of radiation when they 'broke apart' atomic units

So that's what they said, and wrote in the text books for teachers to teach from - and for pseudo-scientists to quote from

But the atom 'emits' nothing. What happens is that when an atomic unit breaks apart - or even moves fast enough - the all-round compressive force pushing on that atom gets a split-second chance to equalize - though the break-point of the atom. [See diagram and talk-thru at radiation page]

And you can see there, that's why radiation 'seems' to be emitted sideways, or at right angles to the direction of movement

The fallacy is in saying that the energy is 'locked-up' in the atom

We know this because the radiation can be produced by merely moving the atom fast enough.  Without breaking it apart

So the all-round pressure (which we call UEF - universal energy field/force) is able to equalize across the space where the atom had briefly been, but we didn't have to open the atom up to get that radiation energy






So it wasn't 'emitted'?

No - so it couldn't have been 'locked-up' in that atom

We at `Perceptions' usually say the atom "permits" a gamma ray or whichever, to pass through or pass by






The atomic / nuclear trick they have been using - for a generation or more - is merely this:- Get hold of a bit of the densest possible matter and move it - fast ! Or break it !

That gives the 'equalizing' radiation which then - if they have packed more unstable matter around that point - sets off the chain reaction

Which is why 'they' don't move or break atoms now but protons - because the proton is so much denser than the atomic unit. Therefore there's more UEF pressure existing across it






But surely the "neutron bomb" is their top bomb now ?

Ah well, it's now all in the language. This 'atom' 'hydrogen' 'neutron' stuff is only the military scientists' simplified codings for various manipulations of dense matter, mainly representing the type of matter surrounding the initial "equalization point"





But there's not a lot of variation available in their present repertoire

They just tweak the 'bang' ratios, and arrange cleaner or dirtier exhaust products - for various nasty purposes






Are you saying there's an even stronger, even more devastating reaction available ?

Yes, not from using the 'explosive' techniques - that's too much trouble for too little extra bang. But a far stronger, far more sustained, and more focussed reaction is almost within their reach





There is a big problem, apart from the basic problem of all armaments: -

The new process is much more dangerous than even 'ordinary' nuclear explosion. In fact it's too dangerous to use on Earth


[ effect possible:- change of  Earth's orbit - unknown extent ]

But that probably won't stop people trying to use it on Earth. When they're desperate - or greedy - enough

It might take only one really bad slip-up



[ Google ]


Perceptions MAIL

can we

take off the blindfolds?


WEB-MASTERS
Visit W3Schools
NEW PAGE TIPS
Help build the largest human-edited directory on the web.
Submit a Site - Open Directory Project - Become an Editor



happy?

struggling editor ?

`Perceptions'

HOME


broken link? - please tell
mail Perceptions

Copyright © 2009 Ray Dickenson

this page
http://www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/inside.html



PRIVACY POLICY

Map IP Address



Share This

FACEBOOK TWITTER GOOGLE+ TUMBLR PINTEREST REDDIT EMAIL