The Science Establishing the Existence of a Life Force

a reply to: ConnectDots
Wikipedia isn't the problem, the problem is that plants don't emit or absorb time, or any of the other nonsense claimed by Kozyrev and Swanson. It's not "legitimate scientific research" as Swanson claims, and I would expect you to at least have a clue about this since you yourself can't explain what Kozyrev is talking about with plants emitting and absorbing time.

a reply to: ConnectDots

It turned out to be a very interesting topic to research. Apparently, there are those, like Sandy Kidd, who are still advocating for some sort of inertial thrust device. But Kidd's patent doesn't describe a “new force” or “forced precession”. Rather, it's a mechanical device which does work. There's no mention of violating Newtonian physics. Mixing the apples with the oranges doesn't serve synchronousuniverse very well! The gyroscope forum has a lot of threads where Sandy Kidd participates including recent posts. Just do a search for Sandy Kidd or forced precession. Also, Kidd doesn't approve of the term “forced precession” and says that the term “stuck” after someone came up with it – which he says is unfortunate.

Forum Link: www.gyroscopes.org...

Gyroscopic apparatus 
US 5024112 A
ABSTRACT
A gyroscopic apparatus (100), having application as a prime mover, comprises a pair of discs (102) disposed opposite one another with arms (104) rotatably supporting the discs (102) connected at a pivot point, the pivot axis thereof lying in a plane midway between the discs (102). A drive arrangement (124, 126, 180) operates to spin the discs (102) in opposite directions while simultaneously rotating the whole assembly of discs (102) and arms (104) about a second axis in the same plane as, but perpendicular to, the pivot axis. A camming arrangement (144, 146, 152) working in conjunction with the rotation about the second axis periodically forces the spinning discs (102) to pivot about the pivot axis to thereby generate a force along the second axis which can be used to perform useful work.
www.google.com...


Regarding Laithwaite's video, the paper from synchronouseuniverse has a convoluted description of what's going on in the Laitthwaite video.

Here's what the synchronouseuniverse paper describes:

However, 'forced precession' arises when instead of allowing the gyroscope axis to move freely, its motion is forced to move in a certain pattern. This can be done by gears or a motor. This is illustrated in Figure 2b. A simple example would be to have the gyro axis precess at a different rate, either faster or slower. In Laithwaite's demonstration, he simply used his hands to rotate the gyroscope axis of the rod he was holding. This is a very simple example of 'forced precession.' The result, as he showed, it that the gyroscope experienced a force as a result. In his case, an apparent upward lifting force occurred. It is a direct result of forcing the gyroscope axis to move in a certain way. This behavior cannot be explained by Newtonian physics, and as a result Laithwaite and others have endured criticism and even ridicule for these experiments.

The paper also includes a diagram of the “forced precession” gyroscope:




In the video, Laithwaite is “lifting” the device while the gyroscope is spinning, but the axis (the arm where he's holding the device) is not moving (this is just my observation). He's not turning it and it's not attached to a motor as shown in the illustration above. So in effect, this device is supposed to go from zero to whatever rotational momentum to achieve the “lift”. But at the zero point, the axis is still. Laithwaite has to apply an external force (his arms) to get the thing moving. And when he does get it moving, the axis is not rotating or playing any role in lifting the device – the “certain pattern” described in the paper seems to be absent. As I said, this is my observation, but here's the video which explains the phenomenon in detail. I think it makes sense – the bottomline is that the device does not defy Newton's law. It's just another way of manipulating the known physics. Besides, common sense says that if the physics of Laithwaite's device held and was proven to produce a force which violated Newton's law, venture capitalists would have been all over it and we would have flying saucers and other devices on the market. This not suppressed science. This is simply science that didn't work. Happens all the time in the lab – but honest scientists accept it, learn from it and move on. Laithwaite inserted his ego into the mix - and that's where he went wrong.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Wikipedia is one problem of many.

Another problem is what you've just done: Ignored everything else besides emitting "time," and jumping to conclusions.

For that reason, I'm done responding to you.

a reply to: Phantom423

Thanks for your time.

If you ever get around to researching the fifty years of Russian torsion physics research and applications, I would be interested in your findings.

Previously posted:

This is interesting:

TORSION FIELDS

Why has Shipov so exasperated the strict, mistrustful scientific world? Even the subject of his research, "mysterious torsion fields", is like a nail in the shoe of physicists, very inconvenient! But, scientists today are recognizing that "spinning fields" really do exist. Just as electromagnetic fields are caused by a charge and gravitational fields are caused by weight, torsion fields are created by any rotating objects. This idea was first introduced by the French mathematician R. Cartan in 1913, then by Albert Einstein. Within the framework of Cartan-Einstein theory, the existence of these fields has been permitted. But, they are weak, cannot be observed, and seem to have no practical application. Shipov states the opposite. This is connected to his theory of physical vacuum and the "mysterious ether" Newton wrote about. For the last 30-40 years, scientists have been trying to analyze the properties of physical vacuum, although from an electromagnetic or gravitational approach. . . .

psychophysical-torture.de.tl...

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Phantom423

Thanks for your time.

If you ever get around to researching the fifty years of Russian torsion physics research and applications, I would be interested in your findings.

I will do that.

The golden rule in science is repeatability - test, retest, independent testing - to confirm results. But that doesn't mean new discoveries won't jump out once in a while. You're obviously interested in this stuff so keep at it - just ask a load of questions and refer to the known science before drawing conclusions.

I see in the link re. Torsion Fields above that just as there are many names for the life force, there are other names for torsion fields:

1. axion field
2. spin field
3. spinor field
4. microlepton field

Just came across this quote

"Looking for conciousness inside the brain
Is like looking inside a radio
For it's announcer"

Nassim Haramein

www.synchronizeduniverse.com...

I believe I have found the Russian website of the experimentalist Anatoly Akimov mentioned above.

On it there is a piece in English that talks about a presentation entitled "Torsion Fields and Their Experimental Manifestation," that apparently appeared in the Proc. of Internatl. Scientific Conference on New Ideas in Natural Science, St. Petersburg, Russia, June 1996.

It is listed on the Natural Philosophy Society website for a conference that took place in 1996.

Here is the piece in English on Akimov's website:

A.E. Akimov, G.I. Shipov, "Torsion Fields and Their Experimental Manifestation," Proc. of the lnternat. Scientific Conf. on New Ideas in Natural Science, St.-Petersburg, Russia, June 1996.

EDITOR'S SUMMARY

The Torsion Fields (Spin Fields) theory has been formulated using the ideas of Eli Cartan, who was first to clearly establish the concept of fields generated by the spin angular momentum density. To date over, a thousand articles by about 100 authors (half of them Russian) constitutes the literature of Torsion fields. This technology was only theoretical until the 1970s.

Early theory indicated that torsion fields would be about 10-30 times the force of gravity. Later it was shown that this result was only for one type of static torsion field generated by spinning sources without radiation. Now it has been shown that much larger torsion fields occur with dynamic torsion (spinning source with emission). It was not until the 1980s that Russian scientists developed torsion field generators with the resulting experimental work yielding many practical results.

Because of the reluctance of the Western scientists to consider a Physical Vacuum as having a real energetic structure, the Russian scientists are the leaders in this new science. Some aspects of the P. Dirac electron-positron model of the physical vacuum have been retained in the development of the model for torsion fields. The big difference is that the vacuum is considered as consisting of annular wave packets of electrons and positrons rather than electron-positron pairs. The development of the model supports the experimental findings that the vacuum forms an orderly structure with linear packing with spin transverse polarization.

This model has led to better models for the gravitation field (characterized by frequencies extending from 1020 to 1040 Hertz). Under appropriate conditions the polarized state of the vacuum can be turned into a spin field. So interdependent are the fields of the physical vacuum that Ya.I. Pomeranchuk has said, "The entire physics is the physics of the Vacuum." As stated in this article, "Modern nature does not need any unifications. There is but Vacuum and its polarized states existing in Nature, whereas the unifications only reflect the degree of our understanding of fields' interconnection."

Here are some of the listed properties of torsion fields:

1. Like charges attract.

2. The field can extend without loss.

3. The fields cannot be screened.

4. The group velocity is not less that 109 times the speed of light.

5. All substances possess their own torsion field.

6. The torsion field has memory. (This may explain the Aspden Effect).

The concepts of the torsion fields are consistent with Wheeler's estimation of the energy of the vacuum as being about 1095 gms per cubic centimeter. By comparison, the density of an atomic nuclei is about 1014 gms per cu cm. Therefore, it is expected that the development of torsion field technology will yield methods of creating energy that are 300% to 500% efficient, or more.

This new technology has led to the development of the inertioid, a kind of a "four-dimensional gyroscope with self action. This device was first accomplished by Vladimir Nikolayevich Tolchin, a Russian engineer. Work is expected to result in a new type of propeller or perhaps an inertial propulsion mechanism.

Another finding is that the nature of a metal element going from molten to solid state can be changed by the effect of a torsion field. Instead of a metal lattice of the usual type, various metals have been induced to form a type of quasi-glass structure. This work has been confirmed by the Ukraine Academy of Science's Institute of Materials Technology. Such types of structural rearrangement of steel in amounts up to 200 kg have been achieved using a torsion generator consuming only 10 milliwatts of electric power.

Torsion field communication has also been demonstrated. Digital signals were sent over a 22 km distance in which a hill and concrete apartment buildings intervened. This was further evidence that the torsion fields are neither absorbed nor diminished. Superluminal velocities of communication have been demonstrated.

Perhaps the most astounding discovery is that a photograph taken of the earth's surface (such as from a plane or satellite) leaves an imprint of the torsion field on the picture emulsion. By proper treatment this torsion field image can be made into an image. Because the earth's substances have their own characteristic torsion fields, the use of selected screening can show the type of earth substances that are reflected to the earth's surface by the torsion fields. Mineral and oil prospectors can have new tools for discovery.

Consider the application of this technology to astrophysics. Because all stars rotate and have torsion fields, it is possible to find the current position of such stars and not just where they were when the photons captured by normal celestial photography left such a star. For example, a star image that is cited as being 10 million light years distant could be seen in its near current position. With torsion fields having a group velocity of 1 09 times the speed of light, then a star at 106 light years away would only have emitted its torsion field about one-thousandth of a year or about 8 hours ago. Although not explicitly mentioned in the article, the comparison of a star field with normal pictures compared to torsion field pictures would provide an excellent tool for the motion of distant stars.

AUTORS' CONCLUSIONS

Not only theoretical but also numerous experimental results testify to the fact torsion fields are an emphatic reality of Nature. Aforementioned evidence reflects but a mite of the accomplished large-scale research work involving over fifty scientific establishments/ The acquired results considerably change our ideas of the organization of the world. This indicates that the formulated scientific concepts form a new scientific Paradigm, which is probably destined to play a more critical role than the breakthrough in the physics of the elapsing 20th century. The already achieved results prompt a conclusion that the 21st century technologies will be torsion technologies.

akimovae.com...

"The entire physics is the physics of the Vacuum."

originally posted by: ConnectDots
On it there is a piece in English that talks about a presentation entitled "Torsion Fields and Their Experimental Manifestation," that apparently appeared in the Proc. of Internatl. Scientific Conference on New Ideas in Natural Science, St. Petersburg, Russia, June 1996.

Those looking for the math can find it. The entire presentation is on Scribd. It was published by the Journal of New Energy Vol. 2, No. 2, 1997 pages 67-84.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Those looking for the math can find it.

Instead of some schlock crank journal, why not learn all the math and physics required to truly understand Einstein-Cartan theory? By the time you do, you won't buy into Shipov anymore.

I'd say, about eight years of dedicated work would do. If you're good with maths.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
Shipov states the opposite. This is connected to his theory of physical vacuum and the "mysterious ether" Newton wrote about.

There's a clue for you, right there. He believes in an aether, then you can hold it over the bin and release.

There IS no aether.

a reply to: Bedlam

You would do well to get busy and look to the Russians to educate you.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Bedlam

You would do well to get busy and look to the Russians to educate you.

You'd do well to start off with college algebra and a nice overview of science course, I'd say. Maybe trig, but it could be too much all at once.

a reply to: Bedlam

21st century science is much more relevant.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Bedlam

21st century science is much more relevant.

And too bad you won't understand it without the education required to do so.

Of course, that's what Shipov is counting on. Except the aether part. That was a mistake.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Wikipedia is one problem of many.

Another problem is what you've just done: Ignored everything else besides emitting "time," and jumping to conclusions.

For that reason, I'm done responding to you.

I'm not ignoring the rest, I answered your question about why the evaporating acetone experiment didn't make any sense, but you need a certain level of understanding to realize why some of the more complicated claims don't make sense. The reason I pick the plants emitting time to point out to you is that even with a limited physics education, it shouldn't be hard to understand why that's not measurable and therefore not science. I would get into the more complicated things too if I thought you could handle it, but what happened to your "one thing at a time" request? If you can't explain why plants emitting time makes sense and can be measured, why do we need to move on?

Previously posted:

. . . This new technology has led to the development of the inertioid, a kind of a "four-dimensional gyroscope with self action. This device was first accomplished by Vladimir Nikolayevich Tolchin, a Russian engineer. . . .

akimovae.com...

There is a 38 page PDF in English about that on Shipov’s website: “Theoretical and experimental research of inertial mass of a four-dimensional gyroscope.”

From pages 29 and 30:

shipov.com...

In the Conclusion, Shipov talks about the enigma for physicists that the force of inertia has been.

He goes on to detail a new law.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
On the Foundation for Mind Being Research (FMBR) website, I see an interesting piece written by physicist Claude Swanson, author of Life Force, the Scientific Basis: Breakthrough Physics of Energy Medicine, Healing, Chi and Quantum Consciousness.

I see today that the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health references Swanson's book on a page entitled "Global Advances in Health and Medicine - An Overview of Biofield Devices."

The life force is creeping into the mainstream, apparently.

"Biofield" is apparently an accepted term:

Abstract

Advances in biophysics, biology, functional genomics, neuroscience, psychology, psychoneuroimmunology, and other fields suggest the existence of a subtle system of “biofield” interactions that organize biological processes from the subatomic, atomic, molecular, cellular, and organismic to the interpersonal and cosmic levels.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

A "subtle system" is suggested.

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Wikipedia is one problem of many.

It would appear that any source that conflicts with your preconceived beliefs is a "problem".

Intellectual honesty is an applied method of problem solving, characterized by an unbiased, honest attitude, which can be demonstrated in a number of different ways:

One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;
Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.
Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception."[1]

Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.

en.wikipedia.org...