"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

reply to post by Arbitrageur

Scientific theories or hypotheses are tested. The results of the testing may be to confirm the theory, or may be to reject the theory, or they may be indeterminate.

I've been trying to give cold fusion, or whatever other process seems to be generating excess heat, the benefit of the doubt in the US Navy experiments by just stating it's unconfirmed. That's an extraordinary claim with a tiny bit of evidence of something, that may not even be cold fusion. We don't know what it is.

The other claims you refer to are extraordinary claims with even less evidence.

Yes, and Reich confirmed his theory over and over again. He performed several experiments, each increasing in complexity, etc. But that doesn't get us anywhere, because its confirmation is internal to the theory. So the proper procedure is to show how the theory is false - or at least attempt to explain it using conventional means. If you can't, it is a soft confirmation for the direction of the theory you are trying to falsify.

But we must practice underdetermination, multiple theories will always be able to account for a given set of data.

We've discussed Zero point energy in this thread which according to wiki is "the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have; it is the energy of its ground state." That has some relation to Gravity Probe B?

I thought that establishing the relationship between gravity and quantum mechanics was an unsolved problem in physics? Theories such as Loop Quantum Gravity and string theory have been proposed, but confirming those ideas with experiment is elusive. So what relationship are you talking about?

When a physicist came to my class for a guest lecture about gravitational waves, I raised my hand and asked what the supposed medium is that these gravitational waves propagate. He shrugged, threw up his arms and said "Aether."

He could have said spacetime, but it really doesn't matter because for all intents and purposes, they fulfill the same function.

Light does not, and indeed CANNOT, travel through a vacuum. There is no such thing as a literal 'vacuum' of nothing, or 'empty space'. The Gravity Probe B experiment is just a modern Michelson-Morley experiment, measuring the 'drag' of aether/spacetime.

Zero Point Energy(or vacuum density fluctuations) can be interpreted entropically with the wave nature of matter. Rather than the density of spacetime being due to 'virtual particles flitting in and out of existence', it is the result of quantum wave interactions from all matter in the universe. Imagine the surface of a body of water. It is always approaching equilibrium. Certain levels of disequilibrium arise as 'crests', and also 'troughs'. But they are always changing - going up and down, making themselves more and less distinct from the background tendency towards equilibrium.

That is aether, or call it spacetime if you want.

It is with respect to that medium, that 'inertia' exists.

The density of local spacetime (which is the energy density relative to that spot from the quantum waves from all the rest of the universe) is 'matter', and 'mass' is that matter in motion 'through' dense spacetime. That energy density isn't IN spacetime, it IS spacetime. Thus, 'gravity' isn't a force, it is an effect of spacetime/aether density.

AFAIK Reich discovered an anomaly, and subsequent experiments have confirmed the existance of an anomaly. But neither Reichs nor any subsequent investigator has identified the cause.

He chose to call it "Orgone energy" and say it was a new source of energy unknown to physics, etc., and it is THAT claim which was and remains speculative and unproven.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
AFAIK Reich discovered an anomaly, and subsequent experiments have confirmed the existance of an anomaly. But neither Reichs nor any subsequent investigator has identified the cause.

You know, semantics matters. You can only call it an anomaly if you weeded out every possible source of contamination or distortion of your signal, observable etc. Until then, it's only fair to day that you don't understand your own experimental setup.

I just did an experiment with a wooden box and a thermometer. In one trial, the temperature underneath the box turned out to be slightly higher than directly above. If I was a pompous nut like Reich, I could have written that I discovered "orgone B", which is a phase shifted version of "ordinary orgone" and therefore exhibits such properties. It is my opinion, however, that there are air currents in the room that I have little control over, and the setup is simply inadequate for such measurements in its present shape. I won't even delve into how IR can bounce around a chamber like a room.

By the way, it's really amusing to read Reich's description of the "orgone" colors. You see, rod cells do not have color sensitivity. In darkness, one can solely use rod cells as the cones simply don't work. There are all sorts of noise in the retina and surrounding nerve tissue that produce a semblance of flashes, dots etc, it's just optical noise.

But of course the ignorami don't know any of that. They swallow that bullcr@p line, hook and sinker.

reply to post by buddhasystem


I thought the difference was between temperature measurements made at the same height?

This paper goes into the setup at quite some length

I'm definitely not an expert on this guy, and I am not claiming that he of the follow up researchers did actually weed out all the variables - even the setups in the paper above seem to me to leave some room for convective cooling - albeit much less than Reich's....but then they also get much less temperature differential......which makes me think the 2 are related....

But whatever......my point is that Reich had no evidence to support his claim of a new energy source unknown to physics. He has an anomaly....OK......but he failed to determine the actual cause of it, so his claim for hte exitence of Orgone can only ever be speculative.....even if true ......until someone shows that Orgone was actually the cause of the anomaly.

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I've been reading about Brian O'Leary's work recently, and a passage I just read made me smile regarding the conflict between traditional, mainstream, authority figures in the world of science and technology and innovators such as Rodin. From the page "Radical Innovation, Relocalization and Sustainability - Brian O’Leary, February 2011 on brianoleary.info

I'm reading his book The Energy Solution Revolution Copyright 2009, Published by Bridger House Publishers, Inc.

On pages 35-36 he states:

In my studies of the suppression syndrome of our times, most all members of the following communities are keeping us away from the most important new developments in science and technology:

The scientists themselves.Throughout history the curious phenomenon of scientific denial is what prevented Galileo's colleagues from looking through his telescope, or what caused the French Academy of Sciences to deny the existence of meteorites, what has made contemporary astronomers ignore the UFO evidence, or what made Harvard University want to appoint a secret committee to fire the late John Mack or for Princeton University to want to fire Robert Jahn, in both cases, scientists willing to explore topics taboo to the academic establishment. In his classic text The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn has clearly shown that scientists can be very unscientific when their own world views are threatened by colleagues.
Industrial suppression. Oil and utility executives generally do not want free energy to happen. General Motors did not want electric cars and innovative batteries, and so they buried the patent. Pharmaceutical companies and doctors do not want to see their profits end with a miracle cure. Banks and insurance companies don't want to handle any big change. In each case, a multibillion dollar vested interest perceives a threat to its own well-being. We return to this topic in Chapter 5.
U.S. Governmental secrecy. This alphabet soup of agencies (CIA, NSA, DIA, ONR, etc.,) born and bred from World War II and superpower confrontations, spends untold trillions of the American taxpayers' dollars to sustain an unaccountable, suppressive and aggressive force that is now abusing its power. The crimes of the executive branch . . . are but the tip of an iceberg of an enormous black budget nightmare of genocide, torture, domestic spying, fear-mongering and fascist control. Because it is sometimes impossible to distinguish information from disinformation, and because secrets are compartmentalized and based on need-to-know, those who have investigated this hydra-headed beast believe that the Cosmic Watergate of UFO, alien, mind-control, genetic engineering, weather engineering, eugenics, secret prisons, mercenary armies, tasers, weapons in space and super-weapons on Earth, antigravity propulsion, 9/11 truth and other secrets will make Watergate or Irangate appear to be kindergarten exercises. Unfortunately and unforgivable, the U.S. Congress, judiciary and mainstream media remain complicit, while the rest of the world looks on with horror and disgust, but which most Americans forget quickly.
The media. In suppressing the suppression stories (or relegating them to the Internet or tabloids, lumping these all into one category they call "conspiracy theories") the media have abrogated their responsibility to report the truth. Most all of them are a meek, cynical and self-aggrandizing lot, operating under strict guidelines about what to investigate and what not to investigate. They are stenographers of the lies and edicts of their corporate masters. Free energy, miracle cures and UFOs are intrinsically big news, but ignored by those charged with informing the public because of a perception of lost credibility, the safeness and party atmosphere of pack journalism, and the element of control and censorship by publishers, networks, the government and others holding the strings of money and power.
Ourselves. This is probably the largest single factor. At some level subconsciously, we do not want free energy. We're afraid. "Better the devil we know than the devil we don't know." Sad to say, you'd think that those of us with an environmental and progressive outlook would be open to second-generation energy. But most of us fall back upon our own traditional renewable energy biases toward solar and wind power. These people seem to want to deny the credibility and feasibility of big breakthroughs, out of fears of losing their own hard-earned and poorly-supported turf, and of the potential for weapons use or overuse. They also seem to be overcome with a sense of scarcity consciousness and a lack of vision. . . .

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I agree with you.

And by the way, it's remarkable that these experiments (Reich's and Correa's) were done in the basement. Of all rooms in the house, it's particularly prone to have temperature gradients, since its ceiling is the floor of the ground level, which is presumably heated, and it's floor can be expected to be quite cool. Correa did his measurement in winter, by the way.

If I was doing that, I would have attached a number of thermometers to all walls, floor and ceiling, and suspended a few on strings, to create a complete temperature map. It's easy and inexpensive. And look, electronic thermometers don't even require that you go downstairs and take a look, it can easily be done remotely. Any walmart has devices like that, and you can get them even cheaper in surplus stores or by mail order from Singapore.

By all this I mean to say that it's pretty obvious to me that the conditions were very poorly controlled.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I thought the difference was between temperature measurements made at the same height?

This paper goes into the setup at quite some length

That control described on page 7 doesn't sound like a proper control. When Correa says Einstein couldn't object to that control setup, I'm pretty sure he's wrong about that, it's pretty easy to find objections.

They are looking for as little as half a degree C temperature difference which is ridiculously small. I've got a lot of experience measuring temperatures.

I don't think they've even begun to address all the variables that can result in half a degree C.

They talk about insulation, but I don't see where the insulation material, construction, density, thickness, and many other factors are specified, like whether the surfaces are painted, unpainted, what color, what surface texture, etc.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
You know, semantics matters. You can only call it an anomaly if you weeded out every possible source of contamination or distortion of your signal, observable etc. Until then, it's only fair to day that you don't understand your own experimental setup.

That's a tall order to identify every possible source that can result in half a degree difference. Correa's paper said they conducted their experiment in a basement and plugged the major drafts, but he's trying to measure half a degree?

I just did an experiment with a wooden box and a thermometer. In one trial, the temperature underneath the box turned out to be slightly higher than directly above. If I was a pompous nut like Reich, I could have written that I discovered "orgone B", which is a phase shifted version of "ordinary orgone" and therefore exhibits such properties. It is my opinion, however, that there are air currents in the room that I have little control over, and the setup is simply inadequate for such measurements in its present shape. I won't even delve into how IR can bounce around a chamber like a room.

You've discovered enogro (that's orgone spelled backwards). and according to Beebs, nobody has disproven it yet so it must be true. Better hurry and apply for the patent!

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
This paper goes into the setup at quite some length

From the Abstract:

We found that the positive temperature difference above the top of a naked suspended metal box, as compared to the suspended air thermometer is, in general, sustained around the clock and is highly significant even by statistical analysis. No such thermal anomaly is observed with only the wooden box. Furthermore, we demonstrate how the thermal anomaly can be separated from the cooling effect of any convection currents arising from the ground (or the floor), and persists when the underside of the metal enclosure is directly exposed to these currents. It is therefore independent of any convection currents in a closed room and specific to the unknown energy functions of a metal box.

reply to post by Mary Rose

This paper gives you an idea of what's missing from Correa's paper, a detailed analysis of sources of thermal radiation in the room, the thermal absorption and reflection properties of the materials used, and the reflection and re-radiation of absorbed thermal radiation:

arxiv.org...

In the simplest terms, even if you eliminate convection currents around the box, there's presumably still a temperature gradient in the basement, where the floor is colder and the ceiling is warmer. They don't account for this direct infrared radiation coming from the ceiling at all. Since the ceiling is warmer it will have more of a tendency to heat up the top of the box than the floor will. How well it does this and the temperature differential attained can be determined by the materials the box is made of. Some material surfaces reflect heat better than others. A simple example is when you put aluminum foil over turkey legs to reflect the infrared radiation away from that part of the turkey so it doesn't overcook by the time the rest of the turkey is done.

www.pbfingers.com...


This issue is not addressed at all in Correa's paper. They only worry about convection currents which is not direct infrared radiation. Was Correa's paper peer-reviewed? It doesn't look like it, and I suspect that is the type of thing peer reviewers might have pointed out if it was reviewed. It looks to me like they may have confirmed what turkey cookers already knew, that different materials reflect and absorb different amounts of heat, rather than finding a magical source of energy.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
. . . description or propaganda of something that does not exist.

According to whom? What source(s)? What is the reliability of the source(s)? Have you checked the reliability of the source(s)? Do you care about the reliability of the source(s)?

In other words, how do you know? Could you be overlooking or unaware of details? Have you researched thoroughly?

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Regarding Carl Sagan, from Brian O'Leary's The Energy Solution Revolution Copyright 2009, Published by Bridger House Publishers, Inc., from Chapter 6 - "Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest: Reviewing the Myths of Breakthrough Energy," pages 60-61:

Myth #2. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This scientific double standard is a corollary to the first myth. [Myth #1 is "New energy is not scientifically valid.] Popularized by the late Carl Sagan, this is the credo of skeptics enforcing scientific orthodoxy in this era of the (feared) deconstruction of mainstream physics. It is simply a defense mechanism to deter new ideas, in which the Occam's Razor goalpost is arbitrarily and politically moved ever more towards the skeptical view: "In the absence of countervailing evidence, the simplest explanation shall suffice." The countervailing evidence is more often ignored by many physicists, setting up lack of support for the research.

Such reasoning flies in the face of the search for the truth, sliding the scale of credibility to suit the political and economic agendas of those in charge. It is absurd to demand more experimental evidence according to whether the question to be asked happens to be important. Mr. Sagan was wrong. We must go where the evidence leads us regardless of our biases as to how ordinary or extraordinary the question might be.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
By the way, it's really amusing to read Reich's description of the "orgone" colors.

What document are you referencing? Title and author? Is it Reich's writing or someone else's?

Originally posted by beebs
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

and according to Beebs, nobody has disproven it yet so it must be true.

Yeah, way to be a douche.

Well, after calling your interlocutors "disingenuous" and "animals", you finally graduated to "douche".

(_?_)

reply to post by Arbitrageur


1) yup, Correa is pretty much self-publishing. You can't expect a serious publication to review and accept a long tangent describing how evil FDA is, in a paper that's supposedly about physics.

2) I already mentioned IR in this thread. Indeed, when the weather is chilly, emergency crews give people "blankets" made of aluminized plastic foil, to help them keep warm. The effect is pretty drastic. In fact, when I was still into mountaineering, some of my friends would add that to their sleeping kit at high altitude. My house is plated with thick aluminum foil (under the plastic siding) for exactly same reason.

reply to post by Mary Rose


Additionally, O'Leary shared his experience with Carl Sagan in a Project Camelot interview in 2009. From "Dr Brian O'Leary: Interview transcript"

. . . Carl Sagan called me from Cornell and asked me to join the faculty. I accepted the offer and spent many years at Cornell in the astronomy department, planetary science department. And I became very creative in research then, but still within the bounds of western science, but in the planetary exploration program. That was for a period of about a decade. . . .

KC: But isn’t there a time in which you and Carl Sagan sort of had a falling-out, or a distancing? Can you describe what happened there?

BO’L: Yes. Well, for one thing, Carl was very angry I left Cornell when I did. It was… One very cold snowy day in May, I landed in Syracuse, and there was a horizontal blizzard -- in May -- and I said: That’s it for upstate New York. And Carl thought that was very frivolous. Because, of course, he was kind of an empire-builder kind of guy; and he also had a huge ego.

It was only later, when I began to embrace the UFO phenomenon and the cover-up, studying all these organizations that were covering up, and having some direct experience, myself, as a researcher no longer beholden to funding from NASA or the university environment, that I began to double-check some of Carl’s work.

I saw, for example, the famous “Face” in Cydonia on Mars, photographed by Viking in 1975, which shows this gigantic mesa that resembles a human face, about a mile across. Carl and I debated this.

It was very, very disappointing to me, because not only was Carl wrong, he also fudged data. He published a picture of the “Face” in Parade Magazine, a popular article, saying that the “Face” was just a natural formation, but he doctored the picture to make it not look like a face.

I began to realize, just directly from the scientific point of view, not only hearsay, that this man was colluding with NASA, that there might be more to this than before. And then, when I started studying things like MJ12 and other organizations that were covering up the UFO phenomenon…

Carl was on a committee with a number of notable people. There was a report issued by the Brookings Institution in 1961 -- and that’s about when I knew Carl, during those years; the ’60s mostly was when I worked closely with him -- that he and this other group said: Well, if any ETs ever showed up on the Earth, it has to be covered up. That’s the only way we’re going to be able to manage this, because if we can’t, then it would be too much of a culture shock.

So their recommendation to the government in 1961 was to cover up the UFO phenomenon, and I think in a way that provided a justification for the ongoing cover-up way back in ’61 -- was to keep things secret. And of course they still are.

reply to post by Mary Rose


HIT PIECE! HIT PIECE! LOGICAL FALLACY! HIT PIECE!

They're suppressing Carl Sagan, therefore he's right.

Originally posted by 547000
HIT PIECE! HIT PIECE! LOGICAL FALLACY! HIT PIECE!

How do you define "hit piece"?

Originally posted by 547000
They're suppressing Carl Sagan, therefore he's right.

You're joking, right?

Originally posted by beebs
Yeah, way to be a douche. You haven't considered any of the things I have said in my last few posts.

It is a theory which accounts for data. It is no more 'true' than the theory of gravity.

They have both been verified. ...

Reich proposed a theory to explain that data. Simple as that.

It's not that simple. Buddhasystem and I posed a more plausible explanation for the data, IR radiation. I even showed a photo demonstrating how we use this effect in everyday life. Unless this was ruled out in the experiment, and it wasn't, then it's a likely cause for the observed effect. There's no need to make up something new to explain it when we already have something that will.

It's not always the easiest thing in the world to calculate the thermal radiation effects. There were even some physicists who wondered if the pioneer anomaly might mean we need to invent some new physics. They should get the same advice as Reich or Correa...if the effect can already be explained by known physics, there's no need to make up something new. But if you read that paper I posted the link to, you will see that determining if the thermal effects are explained by known physics isn't always a walk in the park.

There are some things Reich and Correa could have done on an experimental basis to minimize this IR effect, but it doesn't appear it was even considered so it's a gaping hole in the claims.

So it annoyed you when I took your idea of shifting the burden of proof to its logical conclusion? Sorry I can't help that; it was your idea, I was just demonstrating how silly that idea can become when it's applied. Buddhasystem could easily write up his findings about this new phenomenon known as enogro, and you could make the same claim you just made about Reich, that he has data to support his findings. It's hardly proof of enogro, just as Reich's flawed experiment is hardly proof of orgone.

Instead of calling me a douche, I think you should perhaps reconsider the ramifications of your proclamations about the burden of proof. I was merely trying to help you look at your claims in a different light.