[...]Philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell developed his "theory of logical types" in an attempt to help resolve the types of problems which can arise from self-referential paradox and circularity. According to Gregory Bateson (Steps to an Ecology of Mind) "the central thesis of (the theory of logical types) is that there is a discontinuity between a class and its members. The class cannot be a member of itself nor can one of the members be the class, since the term used for the class is of a different level of abstraction - a different Logical Type - from the terms used for members".
[...]Anthropologist and communication theorist Gregory Bateson applied Russel's theory of logical types as a means to help explain and resolve a number of issues relating to behavior, learning and communication. Acording to Bateson, the notion of different logiacal types was essential to the understanding of play, higher level learning and pathological thinking patterns. Bateson believed that confusions of logical types were largely responsible for what we have been calling "limiting beliefs" and "thought viruses".
As an example, Bateson pointed out that "play" involved distinguishing between different logical types of behavior and messages. Bateson noted that when animals and humans engage in "play" they often display the same behaviors that are also associated with aggression, sexuality, and other more "serious" aspects of life (such as when animals "play fight", or children "play doctor"). Yet, somehow, animals and humans were able to recognize, for the most part, that the play behavior was a different type of class of betavior and "not the real thing". According to Bateson, distinguishing between classes of betavior also required different types of messages. Bateson referred to these messages as "meta messages" - messages about other messages - claiming that they too were of a different "logical type" than the content of a particular communication.
[...]Bateson pointed out that this ability to learn patterns or rules of a class of conditioning procedure was a different "logical type" of learning and did not function according to the same simple stimulus-response-reinforcement sequences used to learn specific isolated behaviors.
[...]According to the Neuro-Logical Levels model, [...]
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS determine the external opportunities or constraints a person has to react to. Answer to the questions "where" and "when".
BEHAVIOR is made up of the specific actions or reactions taken within the environment. Answers to the question "what".
CAPABILITIES guide and give direction to behavioral actions through a mental map, plan or strategy. Answers to the question "how".
BELIEFS and VALUES provide the reinforcement (motivation and permission) that supports or denies capabilities. Answers to the question "why".
IDENTITY factors determine overall purpose (mission) and shape beliefs and values through our sense of self. Answers to the question "who".
[Source: Robert Dilts - Sleight of mouth]
(In)Congruence
[...]Incongruence is usually experienced as an inner conflict with yourself. Often it seems like there are two sides of yourself. It's like there are two "yous." You have a part of you that wants to do something and a part that objects to it. It could be two behaviors, two beliefs, two belief systems, or even two aspects of your identity. Sometimes, when you're struggling with belief and identity conflicts, one "part" is not even aware of the other part. The result is confusion about yourself.
[...]Incongruity can result from imprint experiences, modeling significant others, conflicts in hierarchy of criteria, and life transitions and passages.
[...]When you are working with someone who has conflicting beliefs, you will often observe an asymmetry in body posture. It's not as subtle as skin color changes or other minimal physiological cues and is usually quite easy to see. You know you're dealing with two dissociated parts when the person is gesturing with the left hand as she discusses one aspect of the problem and the right hand for the conflicting aspect. It's interesting to note that often the right hand (which relates to the left brain, in most right handed people who have normally organized eye accessing cues) has intentions that deal with relationships and being worthwhile as a person in contexts that involve others. The left hand (which relates to right brain functions) tends to relate more to the individual being her own person and having a rich, full life. This kind of conflict might be defined as the difference between an "other-oriented" part and a "self-oriented" part. You might also find an "excitatory" and "inhibitory" conflict where you have one part that has great ideas and wants to move ahead while the other part wants you to hold back.
[Source: Robert Dilts - Beliefs]
[...]Incongruity can result from imprint experiences, modeling significant others, conflicts in hierarchy of criteria, and life transitions and passages.
[...]When you are working with someone who has conflicting beliefs, you will often observe an asymmetry in body posture. It's not as subtle as skin color changes or other minimal physiological cues and is usually quite easy to see. You know you're dealing with two dissociated parts when the person is gesturing with the left hand as she discusses one aspect of the problem and the right hand for the conflicting aspect. It's interesting to note that often the right hand (which relates to the left brain, in most right handed people who have normally organized eye accessing cues) has intentions that deal with relationships and being worthwhile as a person in contexts that involve others. The left hand (which relates to right brain functions) tends to relate more to the individual being her own person and having a rich, full life. This kind of conflict might be defined as the difference between an "other-oriented" part and a "self-oriented" part. You might also find an "excitatory" and "inhibitory" conflict where you have one part that has great ideas and wants to move ahead while the other part wants you to hold back.
[Source: Robert Dilts - Beliefs]
Imprints
An imprint is a significant event from the past in which you formed a belief, or a cluster of beliefs. Every form of healing, whether physical or psychological, that I know of gives credence to the fact that present behaviors are often created or shaped by past behaviors and past events. What's important to us as NLP practitioners about past experiences is not the content of what happened, but the impression or belief that the person built from the experience.
The notion of imprinting comes from Konrad Lorenz, who studied the behavior of ducklings when they hatched. He discovered that baby ducks would imprint a mother figure in the first day or so of life. They did that by sorting for movement, so that if something moved just after they hatched from their eggs, they followed it and it "became" their mother. Lorenz would move, and the ducks would follow. He found that if he reintroduced them to their real mother later, they would ignore her and continue to follow him. In the morning, when he got up, he would go outside and find the ducklings curled up around his boots, instead of in their own nest. He once reported that a ping pong ball rolled by one of the eggs when it hatched and the emerging duckling imprinted to the ping pong ball, making it the "mother." Later in life, the duck would shun others of its own species at mating time and try to mount various kinds of round things.
Konrad Lorenz and his colleagues believed that imprints were established at certain neurologically critical periods, and that once the critical period had passed whatever had been "imprinted" was permanent and not subject to change. Timothy Leary investigated the imprint phenomena in human beings. He contended that the human nervous system was more sophisticated than that of ducklings and other animals. He established that under the proper conditions, content that had been imprinted at earlier critical periods could be accessed and reprogrammed or re-imprinted. Leary also identified several significant developmental critical periods in human beings. Imprints established during these periods established core beliefs that shaped the personality and intelligence of the individual.
The primary critical periods involved the establishment of imprints determining beliefs about biological survival, emotional attachments and well-being, intellectual dexterity, social role, aesthetic appreciation, and "meta cognition," or the awareness of one's own thought processes. Thus, health problems might stem back to core beliefs and supporting behaviors established during the biological survival critical period, while phobias could have their roots in the emotional well-being period. Learning handicaps might derive from imprints formed during the critical period involving intellectual dexterity, and so on.
[...]Imprints can be significant "positive" experiences that lead to useful beliefs, or they can be traumatic, or problematic experiences that lead to limiting beliefs. Typically, but not always, they involve the unconscious role modeling of significant others. Compare the duck's behavior with human behavior using child abuse as a point of comparison. Research validates that often people who have been abused as children unconsciously get into relationships, as adults, that repeat their childhood experience. For example, often women who have been abused as children marry men who abuse them as adults. Males who were beaten as a child may abuse their own children. If they were beaten by their mothers, they may get into relationships where they are somehow the lesser person. Research shows that women who were beaten by their mothers are apt to be more violent with their own children than those who weren't. Imprints are one explanation of this phenomena. People abused as children can imprint that this is the typical behavior associated with fathers, mothers, husbands or wives. At the time the ducklings were hatching out of the eggs they didn't say, "Gee, that's a strange looking mother; I'd better check things out." Their brains were probably saying, "This is how mothers are,"--human beings do the same sorts of things.
[...]An imprint is not necessarily logical. It's something that's intuitive, and it typically happens at critical developmental periods. In childhood most of us don't have a real sense of self identity, so we pretend we're somebody else, and we often take on the role model--lock, stock and barrel. We can end up like the ducklings that weren't very discriminating about what they would accept as a mother. Who you are as an adult is, in many ways, an incorporation of the adult models you've grown up with. Your model of being an adult has the features of past significant others; features that have been stuck in early ways of believing and behaving that you made a part of yourself at an early age.These beliefs and behaviors emerge when you reach a certain age and are not a child anymore.
[...]The hardest part of changing any belief system is the fact that the imprint is likely to be out of conscious awareness. Your most significant behaviors are usually the ones that are most habitual. Those are the behaviors that you're least consciously aware of.
[Source: Robert Dilts - Beliefs]
The notion of imprinting comes from Konrad Lorenz, who studied the behavior of ducklings when they hatched. He discovered that baby ducks would imprint a mother figure in the first day or so of life. They did that by sorting for movement, so that if something moved just after they hatched from their eggs, they followed it and it "became" their mother. Lorenz would move, and the ducks would follow. He found that if he reintroduced them to their real mother later, they would ignore her and continue to follow him. In the morning, when he got up, he would go outside and find the ducklings curled up around his boots, instead of in their own nest. He once reported that a ping pong ball rolled by one of the eggs when it hatched and the emerging duckling imprinted to the ping pong ball, making it the "mother." Later in life, the duck would shun others of its own species at mating time and try to mount various kinds of round things.
Konrad Lorenz and his colleagues believed that imprints were established at certain neurologically critical periods, and that once the critical period had passed whatever had been "imprinted" was permanent and not subject to change. Timothy Leary investigated the imprint phenomena in human beings. He contended that the human nervous system was more sophisticated than that of ducklings and other animals. He established that under the proper conditions, content that had been imprinted at earlier critical periods could be accessed and reprogrammed or re-imprinted. Leary also identified several significant developmental critical periods in human beings. Imprints established during these periods established core beliefs that shaped the personality and intelligence of the individual.
The primary critical periods involved the establishment of imprints determining beliefs about biological survival, emotional attachments and well-being, intellectual dexterity, social role, aesthetic appreciation, and "meta cognition," or the awareness of one's own thought processes. Thus, health problems might stem back to core beliefs and supporting behaviors established during the biological survival critical period, while phobias could have their roots in the emotional well-being period. Learning handicaps might derive from imprints formed during the critical period involving intellectual dexterity, and so on.
[...]Imprints can be significant "positive" experiences that lead to useful beliefs, or they can be traumatic, or problematic experiences that lead to limiting beliefs. Typically, but not always, they involve the unconscious role modeling of significant others. Compare the duck's behavior with human behavior using child abuse as a point of comparison. Research validates that often people who have been abused as children unconsciously get into relationships, as adults, that repeat their childhood experience. For example, often women who have been abused as children marry men who abuse them as adults. Males who were beaten as a child may abuse their own children. If they were beaten by their mothers, they may get into relationships where they are somehow the lesser person. Research shows that women who were beaten by their mothers are apt to be more violent with their own children than those who weren't. Imprints are one explanation of this phenomena. People abused as children can imprint that this is the typical behavior associated with fathers, mothers, husbands or wives. At the time the ducklings were hatching out of the eggs they didn't say, "Gee, that's a strange looking mother; I'd better check things out." Their brains were probably saying, "This is how mothers are,"--human beings do the same sorts of things.
[...]An imprint is not necessarily logical. It's something that's intuitive, and it typically happens at critical developmental periods. In childhood most of us don't have a real sense of self identity, so we pretend we're somebody else, and we often take on the role model--lock, stock and barrel. We can end up like the ducklings that weren't very discriminating about what they would accept as a mother. Who you are as an adult is, in many ways, an incorporation of the adult models you've grown up with. Your model of being an adult has the features of past significant others; features that have been stuck in early ways of believing and behaving that you made a part of yourself at an early age.These beliefs and behaviors emerge when you reach a certain age and are not a child anymore.
[...]The hardest part of changing any belief system is the fact that the imprint is likely to be out of conscious awareness. Your most significant behaviors are usually the ones that are most habitual. Those are the behaviors that you're least consciously aware of.
[Source: Robert Dilts - Beliefs]
Gotterdammerung
[...]The end of the Second World War in Europe, at least as normally recounted, does not make sense, for in its standard form as learned in history books that history resembles nothing so much as a badly written finale to some melodramatic Wagnerian opera. [...]To appreciate how badly written a finale it truly is, it is best to begin at the logical place: in Berlin, far below ground, in the last weeks of the war. [...]Generaloberst Heinrici, commander of the vastly outnumbered Army Group Vistula that faces the massed armies of Marshal Zhukov poised less than sixty miles from Berlin, is pleading with his leader for more troops. The general is questioning the disposition of the forces he sees displayed on the battle map, for it is clear to him that some of Germany's finest and few remaining battle worthy formations are far south, facing Marshal Koniev's forces in Silesia. These forces were thus, incomprehensibly, poised to make a stiff defense of Breslau and Prague, not Berlin. The general pleads for Hitler to release some of these forces and transfer them north, but to no avail. "Prague," the Fuhrer responds stubbornly, almost mystically, "is the key to winning the war." Generaloberts Heinrici's hard-pressed troops must "do without."
One may also perhaps imagine Heinrici and the other assembled generals perhaps casting a doleful glance at Norway on the situation map, where thousands of German troops are still stationed, occupying a country that had long since ceased to be of any strategic or operational value to the defense of the Reich. Why indeed did Hitler maintain so many German troops in Norway up to the very end of the war? These paradoxical German troops deployments are the first mystery of the badly written finale of the war in Europe. Both Allied and German generals would ponder it after the war, and both would write it off to Hitler's insanity, a conclusion that would become part of the "Allied Legend" of the end of the war. This interpretation does make sense, for if one assumed that Hitler were having a rare seizure of sanity when he ordered these deployments, what possibly could he have been thinking? Prague? Norway? There were no standard or conventional military reasons for the deployments. In other words, the deployments themselves attest his complete lack of touch with military reality.
[...]But on the Allied side of the Allied Legend, things are equally peculiar. In March and April of 1945, US General George S. Patton's Third Army is literally racing across southern Bavaria, as fast as is operationally possible, making a beeline for:
(1) the huge Skoda munitions works at Pilsen, a complex all but blown off the map by Allied bombers;
(2) Prague; and
(3) A region of the Harz Mountains in Thuringia known to Germans as the Dreiecks or Three Corners," a region encompassed by the old medieval towns and villages of Arnstadt, Jonastal, Wechmar, and Ohrdruf.
One is informed by countless history books that this maneuver was thought to be necessary by the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force (SHEAF) because of reports that the Nazis were planning to make a last stand in the "Alpine National Redoubt", a network of fortified mountains stretching from the Alps to the Harz Mountains. The Third Army's movements, so the story goes, were designed to cut off the "escape route" of Nazis fleeing the carnage of Berlin. Maps are produced in old history books, accompanied in some cases by de-classified German plans some dating from the Weimar Republic! - for just such a redoubt. Case settled. However, there is a problem with that explanation. Allied aerial reconnaissance would likely have told Eisenhower and SHAEF that there were precious few fortified strong points in the "National Redoubt". Indeed, it would have told them that the "Redoubt" was no redoubt at all. General Patton and his divisional commanders would most certainly have been privy to at least some of this information. So why the extraordinary and almost reckless speed of his advance, an advance the post-war Allied Legend would have us believe was to cut off the escape route of Nazis fleeing Berlin, who it turns out weren't fleeing, to a redoubt that didn't exist? The mystery deepens.
Then, remarkably, in a strange twist of fate, General Patton himself, America's most celebrated general, dies suddenly, and, some would say, suspiciously, as a result of complications from injuries he sustained in a freak automobile accident soon after the end of the war and the beginning of the Allied military occupation.
[...]Matters are not helped by events on the other side of the world in the Pacific theater, for there American investigators would uncover similarly strange goings on after the war ended. There, after Nagasaki, the Emperor Hirohito, overriding his ministers who wanted to continue the war, decided that Japan would surrender unconditionally. But why would Hirohito's ministers urge continuance of the war in the face of overwhelming Allied conventional arms superiority, and, from their point of view, facing a potential rain of atomic bombs? After all, "two" bombs could just as easily have turned into twenty. One could, of course, attribute the ministers' objections to the Emperor's intentions to "proud samurai traditions" and the Japanese sense of "honor" and so on. And that would indeed be a plausible explanation. But another explanation is that Hirohito's cabinet ministers knew something. What his ministers probably knew was what American intelligence would soon discover: that the Japanese, "just prior to their surrender, had developed and successfully test fired an atomic bomb. The project had been housed in or near Konan(Japanese name for Hungnam), Korea, in the peninsula's North." It was exploded, so the story goes, one day after the American plutonium bomb, "Fat Man", exploded over Nagasaki, i.e., on August 10, 1945. The war, in other words, depending on Hirohito's decision, could have "gone nuclear". By that time, of course it would have done Japan no good to prolong it, with no viable means of delivery of an atomic weapon to any worthwhile strategic American targets. The Emperor stood his ministers down. These allegations constitute yet another difficulty for the Allied Legend, for where did Japan obtain the necessary uranium for its (alleged) A-bomb? And more importantly, the technology to enrich it ?
[...]Finally, a curious fact, one of those obvious things that one lends to overlook unless attention is drawn to it: the atomic bomb test that took place at the Trinity site in new Mexico was a test of America's implosion-plutonium bomb, a test needed to see if the concept would actually work. It did, and magnificently. But what is immensely significant - a fact missing from almost all mainstream literature on the subject since the end of the war - is that the uranium bomb with its apparatus of a cannon shooting the critical mass of uranium together, the bomb that was actually first used in war, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was never tested. As German author Friedrich Georg notes, this tears a rather gaping hole in the Allied Legend:[...]Why was the uranium bomb of the USA, unlike the plutonium bomb, not tested prior to being hurled on Japan? Militarily this would appear to be extremely dangerous.... Did the Americans simply forget to test it, or did others already do it for them?
[...]So, what exactly did the German pilot Hans Zinsser see on that night of October, 1944, as he flew his Heinkel bomber over the twilight skies of northern Germany? Something that, had he known it, would require the previous badly written Wagnerian libretto to be almost completely revised. His affidavit is contained in a military intelligence report of August 19, 1945, roll number A1007, filmed in 1973 at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Zinsser's statement is found on the last page of the report:
47. A man named ZINSSER, a Flak rocket expert, mentioned what he noticed one day: In the beginning of Oct, 1944 I flew from Ludwigslust (south of Lubeck), about 12 to 15 km from an atomic bomb test station, when I noticed a strong, bright illumination of the whole atmosphere, lasting about 2 seconds.
48. The clearly visible pressure wave escaped the approaching and following cloud formed by the explosion. This wave had a diameter of about 1 km when it became visible and the color of the cloud changed frequently. It became dotted after a short period of darkness with all sorts of light spots, which were, in contrast to normal explosions, of a pale blue color.
49. After about 10 seconds the sharp outlines of the explosion cloud disappeared, then the cloud began to take on a lighter color against the sky covered with a gray overcast. The diameter of the still visible pressure wave was at least 9000 meters while remaining visible for at least 15 seconds.
50. Personal observations of the colors of the explosion cloud found an almost blue-violet shade. During this manifestation reddishcolored rims were to be seen, changing to a dirty-like shade in very rapid succession.
51. The combustion was lightly felt from my observation plane in the form of pulling and pushing.
52. About one hour later I started with an He 111 from the A/D at Ludwigslust and flew in an easterly direction. Shortly after the start I passed through the almost complete overcast (between 3000 and 4000 meter altitude). A cloud shaped like a mushroom with turbulent, billowing sections (at about 7000 meter altitude) stood, without any seeming connections, over the spot where the explosion took place. Strong electrical disturbances and the impossibility to continue radio communication as by lightning, turned up.
53. Because of the P-38s operating in the area Wittenberg-Mersburg I had to turn to the north but observed a better visibility at the bottom of the cloud where the explosion occured (sic). Note: It does not seem very clear to me why these experiments took place in such crowded areas.
In other words, a German pilot had observed the test of a weapon, having all the signatures of a nuclear bomb: electromagnetic pulse and resulting malfunction of his radio, mushroom cloud, continuing fire and combustion of nuclear material in the cloud and so on. And all this on territory clearly under German control, in October of 1944, fully eight months before the first American A-bomb test in New Mexico.
[...]In a nutshell: the Allied Legend about the German failure to obtain the atom bomb because they never had a functioning reactor is simply utter scientific nonsense, because a reactor is needed only it one wants to produce plutonium. It is an unneeded, and expensive, development, if one only wants to make a uranium A-bomb. Thus, there is sufficient reason, due to the science of bombmaking and the political and military realities of the war after America's entry, that the Germans took the decision to develop only a uranium bomb, since that afforded the best, most direct, and technologically least complicated route to acquisition of a bomb.
[Source: Joseph P. Farrell - Reich of the Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons and the Cold War Allied Legend]
One may also perhaps imagine Heinrici and the other assembled generals perhaps casting a doleful glance at Norway on the situation map, where thousands of German troops are still stationed, occupying a country that had long since ceased to be of any strategic or operational value to the defense of the Reich. Why indeed did Hitler maintain so many German troops in Norway up to the very end of the war? These paradoxical German troops deployments are the first mystery of the badly written finale of the war in Europe. Both Allied and German generals would ponder it after the war, and both would write it off to Hitler's insanity, a conclusion that would become part of the "Allied Legend" of the end of the war. This interpretation does make sense, for if one assumed that Hitler were having a rare seizure of sanity when he ordered these deployments, what possibly could he have been thinking? Prague? Norway? There were no standard or conventional military reasons for the deployments. In other words, the deployments themselves attest his complete lack of touch with military reality.
[...]But on the Allied side of the Allied Legend, things are equally peculiar. In March and April of 1945, US General George S. Patton's Third Army is literally racing across southern Bavaria, as fast as is operationally possible, making a beeline for:
(1) the huge Skoda munitions works at Pilsen, a complex all but blown off the map by Allied bombers;
(2) Prague; and
(3) A region of the Harz Mountains in Thuringia known to Germans as the Dreiecks or Three Corners," a region encompassed by the old medieval towns and villages of Arnstadt, Jonastal, Wechmar, and Ohrdruf.
One is informed by countless history books that this maneuver was thought to be necessary by the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force (SHEAF) because of reports that the Nazis were planning to make a last stand in the "Alpine National Redoubt", a network of fortified mountains stretching from the Alps to the Harz Mountains. The Third Army's movements, so the story goes, were designed to cut off the "escape route" of Nazis fleeing the carnage of Berlin. Maps are produced in old history books, accompanied in some cases by de-classified German plans some dating from the Weimar Republic! - for just such a redoubt. Case settled. However, there is a problem with that explanation. Allied aerial reconnaissance would likely have told Eisenhower and SHAEF that there were precious few fortified strong points in the "National Redoubt". Indeed, it would have told them that the "Redoubt" was no redoubt at all. General Patton and his divisional commanders would most certainly have been privy to at least some of this information. So why the extraordinary and almost reckless speed of his advance, an advance the post-war Allied Legend would have us believe was to cut off the escape route of Nazis fleeing Berlin, who it turns out weren't fleeing, to a redoubt that didn't exist? The mystery deepens.
Then, remarkably, in a strange twist of fate, General Patton himself, America's most celebrated general, dies suddenly, and, some would say, suspiciously, as a result of complications from injuries he sustained in a freak automobile accident soon after the end of the war and the beginning of the Allied military occupation.
[...]Matters are not helped by events on the other side of the world in the Pacific theater, for there American investigators would uncover similarly strange goings on after the war ended. There, after Nagasaki, the Emperor Hirohito, overriding his ministers who wanted to continue the war, decided that Japan would surrender unconditionally. But why would Hirohito's ministers urge continuance of the war in the face of overwhelming Allied conventional arms superiority, and, from their point of view, facing a potential rain of atomic bombs? After all, "two" bombs could just as easily have turned into twenty. One could, of course, attribute the ministers' objections to the Emperor's intentions to "proud samurai traditions" and the Japanese sense of "honor" and so on. And that would indeed be a plausible explanation. But another explanation is that Hirohito's cabinet ministers knew something. What his ministers probably knew was what American intelligence would soon discover: that the Japanese, "just prior to their surrender, had developed and successfully test fired an atomic bomb. The project had been housed in or near Konan(Japanese name for Hungnam), Korea, in the peninsula's North." It was exploded, so the story goes, one day after the American plutonium bomb, "Fat Man", exploded over Nagasaki, i.e., on August 10, 1945. The war, in other words, depending on Hirohito's decision, could have "gone nuclear". By that time, of course it would have done Japan no good to prolong it, with no viable means of delivery of an atomic weapon to any worthwhile strategic American targets. The Emperor stood his ministers down. These allegations constitute yet another difficulty for the Allied Legend, for where did Japan obtain the necessary uranium for its (alleged) A-bomb? And more importantly, the technology to enrich it ?
[...]Finally, a curious fact, one of those obvious things that one lends to overlook unless attention is drawn to it: the atomic bomb test that took place at the Trinity site in new Mexico was a test of America's implosion-plutonium bomb, a test needed to see if the concept would actually work. It did, and magnificently. But what is immensely significant - a fact missing from almost all mainstream literature on the subject since the end of the war - is that the uranium bomb with its apparatus of a cannon shooting the critical mass of uranium together, the bomb that was actually first used in war, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, was never tested. As German author Friedrich Georg notes, this tears a rather gaping hole in the Allied Legend:[...]Why was the uranium bomb of the USA, unlike the plutonium bomb, not tested prior to being hurled on Japan? Militarily this would appear to be extremely dangerous.... Did the Americans simply forget to test it, or did others already do it for them?
[...]So, what exactly did the German pilot Hans Zinsser see on that night of October, 1944, as he flew his Heinkel bomber over the twilight skies of northern Germany? Something that, had he known it, would require the previous badly written Wagnerian libretto to be almost completely revised. His affidavit is contained in a military intelligence report of August 19, 1945, roll number A1007, filmed in 1973 at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Zinsser's statement is found on the last page of the report:
47. A man named ZINSSER, a Flak rocket expert, mentioned what he noticed one day: In the beginning of Oct, 1944 I flew from Ludwigslust (south of Lubeck), about 12 to 15 km from an atomic bomb test station, when I noticed a strong, bright illumination of the whole atmosphere, lasting about 2 seconds.
48. The clearly visible pressure wave escaped the approaching and following cloud formed by the explosion. This wave had a diameter of about 1 km when it became visible and the color of the cloud changed frequently. It became dotted after a short period of darkness with all sorts of light spots, which were, in contrast to normal explosions, of a pale blue color.
49. After about 10 seconds the sharp outlines of the explosion cloud disappeared, then the cloud began to take on a lighter color against the sky covered with a gray overcast. The diameter of the still visible pressure wave was at least 9000 meters while remaining visible for at least 15 seconds.
50. Personal observations of the colors of the explosion cloud found an almost blue-violet shade. During this manifestation reddishcolored rims were to be seen, changing to a dirty-like shade in very rapid succession.
51. The combustion was lightly felt from my observation plane in the form of pulling and pushing.
52. About one hour later I started with an He 111 from the A/D at Ludwigslust and flew in an easterly direction. Shortly after the start I passed through the almost complete overcast (between 3000 and 4000 meter altitude). A cloud shaped like a mushroom with turbulent, billowing sections (at about 7000 meter altitude) stood, without any seeming connections, over the spot where the explosion took place. Strong electrical disturbances and the impossibility to continue radio communication as by lightning, turned up.
53. Because of the P-38s operating in the area Wittenberg-Mersburg I had to turn to the north but observed a better visibility at the bottom of the cloud where the explosion occured (sic). Note: It does not seem very clear to me why these experiments took place in such crowded areas.
In other words, a German pilot had observed the test of a weapon, having all the signatures of a nuclear bomb: electromagnetic pulse and resulting malfunction of his radio, mushroom cloud, continuing fire and combustion of nuclear material in the cloud and so on. And all this on territory clearly under German control, in October of 1944, fully eight months before the first American A-bomb test in New Mexico.
[...]In a nutshell: the Allied Legend about the German failure to obtain the atom bomb because they never had a functioning reactor is simply utter scientific nonsense, because a reactor is needed only it one wants to produce plutonium. It is an unneeded, and expensive, development, if one only wants to make a uranium A-bomb. Thus, there is sufficient reason, due to the science of bombmaking and the political and military realities of the war after America's entry, that the Germans took the decision to develop only a uranium bomb, since that afforded the best, most direct, and technologically least complicated route to acquisition of a bomb.
[Source: Joseph P. Farrell - Reich of the Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons and the Cold War Allied Legend]
Silent weapons for quiet wars
[...]In order to achieve a totally predictable economy, the low-class elements of society must be brought under total control, i.e., must be housebroken, trained, and assigned a yoke and long-term social duties from a very early age, before they have an opportunity to question the propriety of the matter. In order to achieve such conformity, the lower-class family unit must be disintegrated by a process of increasing preoccupation of the parents and the establishment of government-operated day-care centers for the occupationally orphaned children. The quality of education given to the lower class must be of the poorest sort, so that the moat of ignorance isolating the inferior class from the superior class is and remains incomprehensible to the inferior class. With such an initial handicap, even bright lower class individuals have little if any hope of extricating themselves from their assigned lot in life. This form of slavery is essential to maintain some measure of social order, peace, and tranquility for the ruling upper class.
[...]From the time a person leaves its mother's womb, its every effort is directed towards building, maintaining, and withdrawing into artificial wombs, various sorts of substitute protective devices or shells. The objective of these artificial wombs is to provide a stable environment for both stable and unstable activity; to provide a shelter for the evolutionary processes of growth and maturity - i.e., survival; to provide security for freedom and to provide defensive protection for offensive activity. This is equally true of both the general public and the elite. However, there is a definite difference in the way each of these classes go about the solution of problems.
The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a political structure is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood. Simply put, they want a human god to eliminate all risk from their life, pat them on the head, kiss their bruises, put a chicken on every dinner table, clothe their bodies, tuck them into bed at night, and tell them that everything will be alright when they wake up in the morning. This public demand is incredible, so the human god, the politician, meets incredibility with incredibility by promising the world and delivering nothing. So who is the bigger liar? the public? or the "godfather"? This public behavior is surrender born of fear, laziness, and expediency. It is the basis of the welfare state as a strategic weapon, useful against a disgusting public.
Most people want to be able to subdue and/or kill other human beings which disturb their daily lives, but they do not want to have to cope with the moral and religious issues which such an overt act on their part might raise. Therefore, they assign the dirty work to others (including their own children) so as to keep the blood off their hands. They rave about the humane treatment of animals and then sit down to a delicious hamburger from a whitewashed slaughterhouse down the street and out of sight. But even more hypocritical, they pay taxes to finance a professional association of hit men collectively called politicians, and then complain about corruption in government.
Again, most people want to be free to do the things (to explore, etc.) but they are afraid to fail. The fear of failure is manifested in irresponsibility, and especially in delegating those personal responsibilities to others where success is uncertain or carries possible or created liabilities (law) which the person is not prepared to accept. They want authority (root word - "author"), but they will not accept responsibility or liability. So they hire politicians to face reality for them.
[...]From the time a person leaves its mother's womb, its every effort is directed towards building, maintaining, and withdrawing into artificial wombs, various sorts of substitute protective devices or shells. The objective of these artificial wombs is to provide a stable environment for both stable and unstable activity; to provide a shelter for the evolutionary processes of growth and maturity - i.e., survival; to provide security for freedom and to provide defensive protection for offensive activity. This is equally true of both the general public and the elite. However, there is a definite difference in the way each of these classes go about the solution of problems.
The primary reason why the individual citizens of a country create a political structure is a subconscious wish or desire to perpetuate their own dependency relationship of childhood. Simply put, they want a human god to eliminate all risk from their life, pat them on the head, kiss their bruises, put a chicken on every dinner table, clothe their bodies, tuck them into bed at night, and tell them that everything will be alright when they wake up in the morning. This public demand is incredible, so the human god, the politician, meets incredibility with incredibility by promising the world and delivering nothing. So who is the bigger liar? the public? or the "godfather"? This public behavior is surrender born of fear, laziness, and expediency. It is the basis of the welfare state as a strategic weapon, useful against a disgusting public.
Most people want to be able to subdue and/or kill other human beings which disturb their daily lives, but they do not want to have to cope with the moral and religious issues which such an overt act on their part might raise. Therefore, they assign the dirty work to others (including their own children) so as to keep the blood off their hands. They rave about the humane treatment of animals and then sit down to a delicious hamburger from a whitewashed slaughterhouse down the street and out of sight. But even more hypocritical, they pay taxes to finance a professional association of hit men collectively called politicians, and then complain about corruption in government.
Again, most people want to be free to do the things (to explore, etc.) but they are afraid to fail. The fear of failure is manifested in irresponsibility, and especially in delegating those personal responsibilities to others where success is uncertain or carries possible or created liabilities (law) which the person is not prepared to accept. They want authority (root word - "author"), but they will not accept responsibility or liability. So they hire politicians to face reality for them.
Big Bang as Genesis
[...]Just as the Ptolemaic cosmology was yoked to the theology of medieval Catholicism, so the Big Bang is today entangled with religious and theological ideas. It is used to support those concepts, and religion in turn is marshaled in defense of modern cosmology. Once again, as four hundred years ago, some theologians attempt to define which scientific concepts are permissible and which are not. The new scientific revolution, like the Copernican revolution, is not an attack on religion as a whole, but on the entanglement of science and religion--the idea that religious authority can dictate or reject scientific doctrines, or that the evidence of science can be used to bolster religious authority.
[...]So we should not be surprised that today cosmology remains entangled with religion. From theologians to physicists to novelists, it is widely believed that the Big Bang theory supports Christian concepts of a creator. In February of 1989, for example, the front-page article of the New York Times Book Review argued that scientists and novelists were returning to God, in large part through the influence of the Big Bang. A character in John Updike's 1987 novel Roger's Version is cited as typical of the trend. The character, a computer hacker, says, "The physicists are getting things down to the ultimate details and the last thing they ever expected to be happening is happening. God is showing through, facts are facts . . . God the Creator, maker of heaven and earth. He made it, we now can see, with such incredible precision that a Swiss watch is just a bunch of little rocks by comparison."
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow echoes the same theme in his widely noted God and the Astronomers: the Big Bang of the astronomers is simply the scientific version of Genesis, a universe created in an instant, therefore the work of a creator. These ideas are repeated in a dozen or more popular books on cosmology and fundamental physics.
Such thinking is not limited to physicists and novelists, who could perhaps be dismissed as amateur theologians. Ever since 1951, when Pope Pius XII asserted that the still-new Big Bang supports the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, Catholic theologians have used it in this way. The pope wrote in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "In fact, it seems that presentday science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial 'Fiat lux' [Let there be light] uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies. . . . Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, therefore, God exists!"
To be sure, these views are by no means unanimous within the Catholic Church. The present pope, John Paul II, is far more cautious in mixing science and religion. In his own address on the subject, he repeatedly apologized on behalf of the Church for the persecution of Galileo and reaffirmed the autonomy of religion and science. Addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1981 he paraphrased Galileo, saying that the Bible "does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." It is therefore not up to religion, he argues, to judge one or another cosmological theory. Yet in the same address, John Paul II favorably quotes from Pius XII's earlier speech and contends that the question of the beginning of the universe is not one that can be solved by science alone--to do so requires "above all the knowledge that comes from God's revelation."
[Source: Eric J Lerner - The Big Bang Never Happened]
[...]So we should not be surprised that today cosmology remains entangled with religion. From theologians to physicists to novelists, it is widely believed that the Big Bang theory supports Christian concepts of a creator. In February of 1989, for example, the front-page article of the New York Times Book Review argued that scientists and novelists were returning to God, in large part through the influence of the Big Bang. A character in John Updike's 1987 novel Roger's Version is cited as typical of the trend. The character, a computer hacker, says, "The physicists are getting things down to the ultimate details and the last thing they ever expected to be happening is happening. God is showing through, facts are facts . . . God the Creator, maker of heaven and earth. He made it, we now can see, with such incredible precision that a Swiss watch is just a bunch of little rocks by comparison."
Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow echoes the same theme in his widely noted God and the Astronomers: the Big Bang of the astronomers is simply the scientific version of Genesis, a universe created in an instant, therefore the work of a creator. These ideas are repeated in a dozen or more popular books on cosmology and fundamental physics.
Such thinking is not limited to physicists and novelists, who could perhaps be dismissed as amateur theologians. Ever since 1951, when Pope Pius XII asserted that the still-new Big Bang supports the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, Catholic theologians have used it in this way. The pope wrote in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "In fact, it seems that presentday science, with one sweeping step back across millions of centuries, has succeeded in bearing witness to that primordial 'Fiat lux' [Let there be light] uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation, while the particles of the chemical elements split and formed into millions of galaxies. . . . Hence, creation took place in time, therefore, there is a Creator, therefore, God exists!"
To be sure, these views are by no means unanimous within the Catholic Church. The present pope, John Paul II, is far more cautious in mixing science and religion. In his own address on the subject, he repeatedly apologized on behalf of the Church for the persecution of Galileo and reaffirmed the autonomy of religion and science. Addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1981 he paraphrased Galileo, saying that the Bible "does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." It is therefore not up to religion, he argues, to judge one or another cosmological theory. Yet in the same address, John Paul II favorably quotes from Pius XII's earlier speech and contends that the question of the beginning of the universe is not one that can be solved by science alone--to do so requires "above all the knowledge that comes from God's revelation."
[Source: Eric J Lerner - The Big Bang Never Happened]
Cosmology and Ideology
There has always been an intimate relation between the ideas dominant in cosmology and the ideas dominant in society. It would be astonishing if that relationship had come to an end in our present enlightened times. Not that cosmologists directly derive their theories from social or political ideas--far from it. But what sounds reasonable to them cannot but be influenced by events in the world around them and what they and others think about it.
So it is certainly no coincidence that the period during which the Big Bang was in eclipse, from around 1957 to 1964, corresponds to the time of the most vigorous expansion of postwar recovery and a resurgence of confidence in progress. The Big Bang's golden age in the seventies, on the other hand, corresponds to the end of the postwar boom and a new decade of growing pessimism. In fact, the links between cosmological and social ideas were made explicit by both cosmologists and political writers of the period.
In the late sixties and the early seventies the postwar recovery ended in all the market economies. Real wages peaked in the United States and Western Europe, and somewhat later in Japan. In the Third World, per capita grain production, the best overall indicator of food supply and living standards, reached 340 kilograms per year and stopped rising, only to remain there for the next twenty years. While the food supply had increased by 50 percent from the depths of the late forties, it only recovered the levels of 1913.
As the seventies wore on, the economic problems facing the entire world, east as well as west, became more obvious. As had happened before, new markets were being saturated and increasing pressure was put on wages and living standards worldwide, as industrialists strove to maintain and increase their companies' profitability.
Almost as soon as this cessation of growth began to manifest itself, social ideas that justified the situation as inevitable started to circulate. In 1968 the Club of Rome, bringing together industrialists and academics, championed the idea of zero growth: the earth is finite, the universe is running down, it is impossible to continue the increase in living standards. The two oil crises were interpreted as warnings of the exhaustibility of finite resources-- a logic that must appear quaint to oil producers who now go to war in a struggle against a persistent glut.
Many writers used the Big Bang cosmology and the idea of universal decay to buttress the argument that consumption has to be restrained. In his 1976 book The Poverty of Power Barry Commoner begins from the cosmological premise that "the universe is constantly, irretrievably becoming less ordered than it was", and concludes that, given this overall tendency, Americans must make do with less in order to postpone the inevitable day when total disorder reigns on earth. The faltering universe of the Big Bang became a metaphor for the faltering economy--both equally inevitable processes, beyond the control of mere mortals.
Nor were cosmologists and physicists immune from the influence of such analogies. In the popular 1977 account of the Big Bang, The First Three Minutes, Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg concludes by contemplating the philosophical lessons of this universe, which will end either in the icy cold of final decay and infinite expansion, or in the fiery collapse to a new singularity: "It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more or less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning. As I write this I happen to be in an airplane at 30,000 feet, flying over Wyoming en route home from San Francisco to Boston. Below, the earth looks very soft and comfortable--fluffy clouds here and there, snow turning pink as the sun sets, roads stretching straight across the country from one town to another. It is very hard to realize that this all is just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."
For Weinberg, as for others, the universe of the Big Bang is irreconcilable with human progress. The end may come billions of years from now, but in the end all that the human race accomplished in aeons will be nothing, of no consequence. Progress, then, is an illusion, as it was for Augustine sixteen hundred years ago. The only question is when it will stop--now, or at some point in the future. It is thus no surprise that the Big Bang flourished simultaneously with the social ideas, like zero growth, that deny the reality of progress, and with a growing economic crisis that, at least in the short term, had stalled that progress. Once again, cosmology justified the course of events on earth.
But there is probably no better example in this century of the interaction of social ideology and cosmology than the development of the inflationary universe in the eighties. Nineteen eighty, with the coming to power of conservative administrations in America and elsewhere, marked the end of a period of fashionable pessimism and the beginning of a decade of speculative boom. Alan Guth arrived at his idea of cosmic inflation just as the worst monetary inflation of the century was coming to a climax. He concluded that the universe is a "free lunch" just as the American economy began its own gigantic free lunch--a period of speculation which rewarded its wealthy participants while actual production stagnated.
Throughout the decade, the rise of financial speculation in Wall Street was shadowed by the rise of cosmologists' speculations in Princeton, Cambridge, and elsewhere. As Witten and his colleagues were acclaimed by the press as geniuses for theories that produced not a single valid prediction, so men like Michael Milken and Donald Trump earned not only far greater fame but also incomes that peaked, in Milken's case, at half a billion dollars per year for paper manipulations that added not a single penny to the nation's production.
In the realm of finance, fortunes were built on a tower of debt. A speculator would borrow four billion dollars to buy a company, sell it for five billion to another speculator, who would, in turn, break it up to sell it in pieces for six billion dollars--all on borrowed money. All involved reaped handsome profits and were hailed as geniuses of financial wizardry--until their indictments.
The result of this was an actual decline in living standards both in the U.S. and throughout the world: by the end of the eighties real family income in the U.S. had dropped by 10 percent and was at the same level as it had been twenty-five years earlier, despite the fact that most families by now had two incomes.
Obviously, the small-scale speculators of cosmology did not, in any conscious way, imitate the large-scale speculators of Wall Street. Yet, as in every other epoch, society's dominant ideas permeated cosmology. If the wealthiest members of society earned billions by mere manipulation of numbers, without building a single factory or mill, it didn't seem too strange that scientific reputations could be made with theories that have no more relation to reality. If a tower of financial speculation could be built on debt--the promise of future payment--then, similarly, a tower of cosmological speculation could be built on promises of future experimental confirmation.
There was, however, a more direct relationship between the development of the economy over the past decade and the development of cosmology and science generally. The eighties saw a slashing, particularly in the U.S., of the amount of money devoted to nonmilitary research and development and a drastic slowing of technical advance.
To a large extent, this intensified a tendency evident in the seventies and even in the sixties. Since 1960 there has not been a single major qualitative breakthrough in physical technology.
The thirty years before 1960 saw a series of fundamental developments: television in the thirties; the transistor, computer, radar, and, of course, nuclear energy in the forties; the development of space travel and the laser in the fifties. In the subsequent three decades there have been dramatic improvements in all these areas, particularly in computers, but not a single qualitatively new, functional idea. Only in biology has genetic engineering brought about a qualitative advance.
This is a profound change for modern society: not since the beginning of the industrial revolution 250 years ago has there been a similar period of three decades without major technical advances. Such technical stagnation has a deep impact on science and technology. An advancing society, which requires and thus supports fundamental work in science and technology, continually generates challenges for the pure sciences and provides the materials needed to meet those challenges. Thus the problems arising from the development of electricity and electrotechnology in the late nineteenth century led directly to the study of nuclear structure and eventually to the release of nuclear energy. When technological progress slows or ceases, that crossfertilization of theory and experiment, thought and action, begins to wither and scientists begin to turn to sterile speculation.
The slowing of technology is, today, directly linked to the growth of financial speculation. Five billion dollars invested in buying, say, Hughes Aircraft, is five billion dollars that the buyer, General Motors, will not put into new factories or new research. To the extent that the world market appears to be saturated, as it does today, then profits are easier to make through speculation than in production. What use is new technology if new factories aren't profitable? The diversion of financial resources from technical advance has pushed thousands of scientists away from the challenges of the real world into the deserts of speculation.
Fortunately for science, even the perfection of existing technologies, such as the computer, requires a broad base of scientific research. But it is fundamental research--investigations whose findings don't seem to be immediately useful--that suffer first when technological development slows. Today those areas are clearly cosmology and particle or high-energy physics--where the link between science and technology, theory and human progress, has been broken almost completely. It is here that, as in postclassical Greece, the stagnation of society has led to the return of mathematical myths, a retreat from the problems of base matter to the serene contemplation of numbers.
Today cosmologists often pride themselves on the isolation of their work from the everyday world and from any possible application. They and their particle theorist colleagues give their hypothetical entities whimsical and comical names to flaunt their belief that their activity is, at base, an elaborate and difficult game, the "free play of the mind." In a society beset by growing crises, a world of poverty, crime, drugs, and AIDS, a world without progress, the pure realm of mathematics offers a serene cloister.
[Source: Eric J Lerner - The Big Bang Never Happened]
So it is certainly no coincidence that the period during which the Big Bang was in eclipse, from around 1957 to 1964, corresponds to the time of the most vigorous expansion of postwar recovery and a resurgence of confidence in progress. The Big Bang's golden age in the seventies, on the other hand, corresponds to the end of the postwar boom and a new decade of growing pessimism. In fact, the links between cosmological and social ideas were made explicit by both cosmologists and political writers of the period.
In the late sixties and the early seventies the postwar recovery ended in all the market economies. Real wages peaked in the United States and Western Europe, and somewhat later in Japan. In the Third World, per capita grain production, the best overall indicator of food supply and living standards, reached 340 kilograms per year and stopped rising, only to remain there for the next twenty years. While the food supply had increased by 50 percent from the depths of the late forties, it only recovered the levels of 1913.
As the seventies wore on, the economic problems facing the entire world, east as well as west, became more obvious. As had happened before, new markets were being saturated and increasing pressure was put on wages and living standards worldwide, as industrialists strove to maintain and increase their companies' profitability.
Almost as soon as this cessation of growth began to manifest itself, social ideas that justified the situation as inevitable started to circulate. In 1968 the Club of Rome, bringing together industrialists and academics, championed the idea of zero growth: the earth is finite, the universe is running down, it is impossible to continue the increase in living standards. The two oil crises were interpreted as warnings of the exhaustibility of finite resources-- a logic that must appear quaint to oil producers who now go to war in a struggle against a persistent glut.
Many writers used the Big Bang cosmology and the idea of universal decay to buttress the argument that consumption has to be restrained. In his 1976 book The Poverty of Power Barry Commoner begins from the cosmological premise that "the universe is constantly, irretrievably becoming less ordered than it was", and concludes that, given this overall tendency, Americans must make do with less in order to postpone the inevitable day when total disorder reigns on earth. The faltering universe of the Big Bang became a metaphor for the faltering economy--both equally inevitable processes, beyond the control of mere mortals.
Nor were cosmologists and physicists immune from the influence of such analogies. In the popular 1977 account of the Big Bang, The First Three Minutes, Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg concludes by contemplating the philosophical lessons of this universe, which will end either in the icy cold of final decay and infinite expansion, or in the fiery collapse to a new singularity: "It is almost irresistible for humans to believe that we have some special relation to the universe, that human life is not just a more or less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents reaching back to the first three minutes, but that we were somehow built in from the beginning. As I write this I happen to be in an airplane at 30,000 feet, flying over Wyoming en route home from San Francisco to Boston. Below, the earth looks very soft and comfortable--fluffy clouds here and there, snow turning pink as the sun sets, roads stretching straight across the country from one town to another. It is very hard to realize that this all is just a tiny part of an overwhelmingly hostile universe. It is even harder to realize that this present universe has evolved from an unspeakably unfamiliar early condition, and faces a future extinction of endless cold or intolerable heat. The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."
For Weinberg, as for others, the universe of the Big Bang is irreconcilable with human progress. The end may come billions of years from now, but in the end all that the human race accomplished in aeons will be nothing, of no consequence. Progress, then, is an illusion, as it was for Augustine sixteen hundred years ago. The only question is when it will stop--now, or at some point in the future. It is thus no surprise that the Big Bang flourished simultaneously with the social ideas, like zero growth, that deny the reality of progress, and with a growing economic crisis that, at least in the short term, had stalled that progress. Once again, cosmology justified the course of events on earth.
But there is probably no better example in this century of the interaction of social ideology and cosmology than the development of the inflationary universe in the eighties. Nineteen eighty, with the coming to power of conservative administrations in America and elsewhere, marked the end of a period of fashionable pessimism and the beginning of a decade of speculative boom. Alan Guth arrived at his idea of cosmic inflation just as the worst monetary inflation of the century was coming to a climax. He concluded that the universe is a "free lunch" just as the American economy began its own gigantic free lunch--a period of speculation which rewarded its wealthy participants while actual production stagnated.
Throughout the decade, the rise of financial speculation in Wall Street was shadowed by the rise of cosmologists' speculations in Princeton, Cambridge, and elsewhere. As Witten and his colleagues were acclaimed by the press as geniuses for theories that produced not a single valid prediction, so men like Michael Milken and Donald Trump earned not only far greater fame but also incomes that peaked, in Milken's case, at half a billion dollars per year for paper manipulations that added not a single penny to the nation's production.
In the realm of finance, fortunes were built on a tower of debt. A speculator would borrow four billion dollars to buy a company, sell it for five billion to another speculator, who would, in turn, break it up to sell it in pieces for six billion dollars--all on borrowed money. All involved reaped handsome profits and were hailed as geniuses of financial wizardry--until their indictments.
The result of this was an actual decline in living standards both in the U.S. and throughout the world: by the end of the eighties real family income in the U.S. had dropped by 10 percent and was at the same level as it had been twenty-five years earlier, despite the fact that most families by now had two incomes.
Obviously, the small-scale speculators of cosmology did not, in any conscious way, imitate the large-scale speculators of Wall Street. Yet, as in every other epoch, society's dominant ideas permeated cosmology. If the wealthiest members of society earned billions by mere manipulation of numbers, without building a single factory or mill, it didn't seem too strange that scientific reputations could be made with theories that have no more relation to reality. If a tower of financial speculation could be built on debt--the promise of future payment--then, similarly, a tower of cosmological speculation could be built on promises of future experimental confirmation.
There was, however, a more direct relationship between the development of the economy over the past decade and the development of cosmology and science generally. The eighties saw a slashing, particularly in the U.S., of the amount of money devoted to nonmilitary research and development and a drastic slowing of technical advance.
To a large extent, this intensified a tendency evident in the seventies and even in the sixties. Since 1960 there has not been a single major qualitative breakthrough in physical technology.
The thirty years before 1960 saw a series of fundamental developments: television in the thirties; the transistor, computer, radar, and, of course, nuclear energy in the forties; the development of space travel and the laser in the fifties. In the subsequent three decades there have been dramatic improvements in all these areas, particularly in computers, but not a single qualitatively new, functional idea. Only in biology has genetic engineering brought about a qualitative advance.
This is a profound change for modern society: not since the beginning of the industrial revolution 250 years ago has there been a similar period of three decades without major technical advances. Such technical stagnation has a deep impact on science and technology. An advancing society, which requires and thus supports fundamental work in science and technology, continually generates challenges for the pure sciences and provides the materials needed to meet those challenges. Thus the problems arising from the development of electricity and electrotechnology in the late nineteenth century led directly to the study of nuclear structure and eventually to the release of nuclear energy. When technological progress slows or ceases, that crossfertilization of theory and experiment, thought and action, begins to wither and scientists begin to turn to sterile speculation.
The slowing of technology is, today, directly linked to the growth of financial speculation. Five billion dollars invested in buying, say, Hughes Aircraft, is five billion dollars that the buyer, General Motors, will not put into new factories or new research. To the extent that the world market appears to be saturated, as it does today, then profits are easier to make through speculation than in production. What use is new technology if new factories aren't profitable? The diversion of financial resources from technical advance has pushed thousands of scientists away from the challenges of the real world into the deserts of speculation.
Fortunately for science, even the perfection of existing technologies, such as the computer, requires a broad base of scientific research. But it is fundamental research--investigations whose findings don't seem to be immediately useful--that suffer first when technological development slows. Today those areas are clearly cosmology and particle or high-energy physics--where the link between science and technology, theory and human progress, has been broken almost completely. It is here that, as in postclassical Greece, the stagnation of society has led to the return of mathematical myths, a retreat from the problems of base matter to the serene contemplation of numbers.
Today cosmologists often pride themselves on the isolation of their work from the everyday world and from any possible application. They and their particle theorist colleagues give their hypothetical entities whimsical and comical names to flaunt their belief that their activity is, at base, an elaborate and difficult game, the "free play of the mind." In a society beset by growing crises, a world of poverty, crime, drugs, and AIDS, a world without progress, the pure realm of mathematics offers a serene cloister.
[Source: Eric J Lerner - The Big Bang Never Happened]
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
[...] one of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions. To a great extent these are the only problems that the community will admit as scientific or encourage its members to undertake. Other problems, including many that had previously been standard, are rejected as metaphysical, as the concern of another discipline, or sometimes as just too problematic to be worth the time. A paradigm can, for that matter, even insulate the community from those socially important problems that are not reducible to the puzzle form, because they cannot be stated in terms of the conceptual and instrumental tools the paradigm supplies.
[...] once it has achieved the status of a paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place. No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientific development at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsification by direct comparison with nature. [...] the act of judgement that leads scientists to reject a previously accepted theory is always based upon more than a comparison of that theory with the world. The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgement leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature AND with each other.
[...] Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change. And perhaps that point need not have been made explicit, for obviously these are men who, being little commited by prior practice to the traditional rules of normal science, are particularly likely to see that those rules no longer define a playable game and to conceive another set that can replace them.
[...] Why should a change of paradigm be called a revolution ? In the face of the vast and essential differences between political and scientific development, what parallelism can justify the metaphor that finds revolutions in both ?[...] Political revolutions aim to change political institutions in ways that those institutions themselves prohibit.
[...] Like the choice between competing political institutions, that between competing paradigms proves to be a choice between incompatible modes of community life. Because it has that character, the choice is not and cannot be determined merely by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science, for these depend in part upon a particular paradigm, and that paradigm is at issue. When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm defense. [...] whatever its force, the status of the circular argument is only that of persuasion. It cannot be made logically or even probabilistically compelling for those who refuse to step inside the circle. [...] As in political revolutions, so in paradigm choice - there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community.
[...] cumulative acquisition of novelty is not only rare in fact but improbable in principle. Normal research, which is cumulative, owes its success to the ability of scientists regularly to select problems that can be solved with conceptual and instrumental techniques close to those already in existence. (That is why an excessive concern with useful problems, regardless of their relation to existing knowledge and technique, can so easily inhibit scientific development.) The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not, however, just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly. Unanticipated novelty, the new discovery, can emerge only to the extent that his anticipations about nature and his instruments prove wrong.
[...] To the extent, as significant as it is incomplete, that two scientific schools disagree about what is a problem and what a solution, they will inevitably talk through each other when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms. In the partially circular arguments that regularly result, each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent. [...] since no paradigm ever solves the problems it defines and since no two paradigms leave all the same problems unsolved, paradigm debates always involve the question: Which problems is it more significant to have solved ?
[...] What a man sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see. [...] Far more clearly than the immediate experience from which they in part derive, operations and measurements are paradigm-determined. Science does not deal in all possible laboratory manipulations. Instead, it selects those relevant to the juxtaposition of a paradigm with the immediate experience that the paradigm has partially determined.
[...] Both scientists and laymen take much of their image of creative scientific activity from an authoritative source that systematically disguises - partly for important functional reasons - the existence and significance of scientific revolutions. [...] As the source of authority, I have in mind principally text-books of science together with both the popularizations and the philosophical works modeled on them. [...] All three record the stable OUTCOME of past revolutions and thus display the bases of the current normal-scientific tradition. To fulfill their function they need not provide authentic information about the way in which those bases were first recognized and then embraced by the profession. In the case of textbooks, at least, there are even good reasons why, in these matters, they should be systematically misleading. Textbooks [...] have to be rewritten in whole or in part whenever the language, problem-structure, or standards of normal science change. In short, they have to be rewritten in the aftermath of each scientific revolution, and, once rewritten, they inevitably disguise not only the role but the very existence of the revolutions that produced them.
[...] Textbooks thus begin by truncating the scientist's sense of his discipline's history and then proceed to supply a substitute for what they have eliminated. Characteristically, textbooks of science contain just a bit of history, either in an introductory chapter or, more often, in scattered references to the great heroes of an earlier age. From such references both students and professionals come to feel like participants in a long-standing historical tradition. Yet the textbook-derived tradition in which scientists come to sense their participation is one that, in fact, never existed. For reasons that are both obvious and highly functional, science textbooks (and too many of the older histories of science) refer only to that part of the work of past scientists that can easily be viewed as contributions to the statement and solution of the texts' paradigm problems. Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of earlier ages are implicitly represented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method has made seem scientific. No wonder textbooks and the historical tradition they imply have to be rewritten after each scientific revolution. And no wonder that, as they are re-written, science once again comes to seem largely cumulative.
[...] And Max Plank, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it".
[...] paradigm debates are not really about relative problem-solving ability, though for good reasons they are usually couched in those terms. Instead, the issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise. The man who embraces a new paradigm at an early stage must often do so in defiance of the evidence provided by problem-solving. He must, that is, have faith that the new paradigm will succeed with the many large problems that confront it, knowing only that the older paradigm has failed with a few. A decision of that kind can only be made on faith.
[Source: Thomas S Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]
[...] once it has achieved the status of a paradigm, a scientific theory is declared invalid only if an alternate candidate is available to take its place. No process yet disclosed by the historical study of scientific development at all resembles the methodological stereotype of falsification by direct comparison with nature. [...] the act of judgement that leads scientists to reject a previously accepted theory is always based upon more than a comparison of that theory with the world. The decision to reject one paradigm is always simultaneously the decision to accept another, and the judgement leading to that decision involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature AND with each other.
[...] Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change. And perhaps that point need not have been made explicit, for obviously these are men who, being little commited by prior practice to the traditional rules of normal science, are particularly likely to see that those rules no longer define a playable game and to conceive another set that can replace them.
[...] Why should a change of paradigm be called a revolution ? In the face of the vast and essential differences between political and scientific development, what parallelism can justify the metaphor that finds revolutions in both ?[...] Political revolutions aim to change political institutions in ways that those institutions themselves prohibit.
[...] Like the choice between competing political institutions, that between competing paradigms proves to be a choice between incompatible modes of community life. Because it has that character, the choice is not and cannot be determined merely by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science, for these depend in part upon a particular paradigm, and that paradigm is at issue. When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm defense. [...] whatever its force, the status of the circular argument is only that of persuasion. It cannot be made logically or even probabilistically compelling for those who refuse to step inside the circle. [...] As in political revolutions, so in paradigm choice - there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community.
[...] cumulative acquisition of novelty is not only rare in fact but improbable in principle. Normal research, which is cumulative, owes its success to the ability of scientists regularly to select problems that can be solved with conceptual and instrumental techniques close to those already in existence. (That is why an excessive concern with useful problems, regardless of their relation to existing knowledge and technique, can so easily inhibit scientific development.) The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not, however, just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly. Unanticipated novelty, the new discovery, can emerge only to the extent that his anticipations about nature and his instruments prove wrong.
[...] To the extent, as significant as it is incomplete, that two scientific schools disagree about what is a problem and what a solution, they will inevitably talk through each other when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms. In the partially circular arguments that regularly result, each paradigm will be shown to satisfy more or less the criteria that it dictates for itself and to fall short of a few of those dictated by its opponent. [...] since no paradigm ever solves the problems it defines and since no two paradigms leave all the same problems unsolved, paradigm debates always involve the question: Which problems is it more significant to have solved ?
[...] What a man sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see. [...] Far more clearly than the immediate experience from which they in part derive, operations and measurements are paradigm-determined. Science does not deal in all possible laboratory manipulations. Instead, it selects those relevant to the juxtaposition of a paradigm with the immediate experience that the paradigm has partially determined.
[...] Both scientists and laymen take much of their image of creative scientific activity from an authoritative source that systematically disguises - partly for important functional reasons - the existence and significance of scientific revolutions. [...] As the source of authority, I have in mind principally text-books of science together with both the popularizations and the philosophical works modeled on them. [...] All three record the stable OUTCOME of past revolutions and thus display the bases of the current normal-scientific tradition. To fulfill their function they need not provide authentic information about the way in which those bases were first recognized and then embraced by the profession. In the case of textbooks, at least, there are even good reasons why, in these matters, they should be systematically misleading. Textbooks [...] have to be rewritten in whole or in part whenever the language, problem-structure, or standards of normal science change. In short, they have to be rewritten in the aftermath of each scientific revolution, and, once rewritten, they inevitably disguise not only the role but the very existence of the revolutions that produced them.
[...] Textbooks thus begin by truncating the scientist's sense of his discipline's history and then proceed to supply a substitute for what they have eliminated. Characteristically, textbooks of science contain just a bit of history, either in an introductory chapter or, more often, in scattered references to the great heroes of an earlier age. From such references both students and professionals come to feel like participants in a long-standing historical tradition. Yet the textbook-derived tradition in which scientists come to sense their participation is one that, in fact, never existed. For reasons that are both obvious and highly functional, science textbooks (and too many of the older histories of science) refer only to that part of the work of past scientists that can easily be viewed as contributions to the statement and solution of the texts' paradigm problems. Partly by selection and partly by distortion, the scientists of earlier ages are implicitly represented as having worked upon the same set of fixed problems and in accordance with the same set of fixed canons that the most recent revolution in scientific theory and method has made seem scientific. No wonder textbooks and the historical tradition they imply have to be rewritten after each scientific revolution. And no wonder that, as they are re-written, science once again comes to seem largely cumulative.
[...] And Max Plank, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it".
[...] paradigm debates are not really about relative problem-solving ability, though for good reasons they are usually couched in those terms. Instead, the issue is which paradigm should in the future guide research on problems many of which neither competitor can yet claim to resolve completely. A decision between alternate ways of practicing science is called for, and in the circumstances that decision must be based less on past achievement than on future promise. The man who embraces a new paradigm at an early stage must often do so in defiance of the evidence provided by problem-solving. He must, that is, have faith that the new paradigm will succeed with the many large problems that confront it, knowing only that the older paradigm has failed with a few. A decision of that kind can only be made on faith.
[Source: Thomas S Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]
The World of Free Energy - by Peter Lindemann
The World of Free Energy
by Peter Lindemann, D.Sc.
In the late 1880's, trade journals in the electrical sciences were predicting "free electricity" in the near future. Incredible discoveries about the nature of electricity were becoming common place. Nikola Tesla was demonstrating "wireless lighting" and other wonders associated with high frequency currents. There was an excitement about the future like never before.
Within 20 years, there would be automobiles, airplanes, movies, recorded music, telephones, radio, and practical cameras. The Victorian Age was giving way to something totally new. For the first time in history, common people were encouraged to envision a utopian future, filled with abundant modern transportation and communication, as well as jobs, housing and food for everyone. Disease would be conquered, and so would poverty. Life was getting better, and this time, everyone was going to get "a piece of the pie." So, what happened? In the midst of this technological explosion, where did the energy breakthroughs go? Was all of this excitement about "free electricity", which happened just before the beginning of the last century, all just wishful thinking that "real science" eventually disproved?
Current State of Technology
Actually, the answer to that question is NO. In fact, the opposite is true. Spectacular energy technologies were developed right along with the other breakthroughs. Since that time, multiple methods for producing vast amounts of energy at extremely low cost have been developed. None of these technologies have made it to the "open" consumer market as an article of commerce, however. Exactly why this is true will be discussed shortly. But first, I would like to describe to you a short list of "free energy" technologies that I am currently aware of, and that are proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The common feature connecting all of these discoveries, is that they use a small amount of one form of energy to control or release a large amount of a different kind of energy. Many of them tap the underlying aether in some way; a source of energy conveniently ignored by "modern" science.
1) Radiant Energy.
Nikola Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter, T. Henry Moray's Radiant Energy Device, Edwin Gray's EMA Motor, and Paul Baumann's Testatika Machine all run on Radiant Energy. This natural energy form can be gathered directly from the environment (mistakenly called "static" electricity) or extracted from ordinary electricity by the method called "fractionation." Radiant Energy can perform the same wonders as ordinary electricity, at less than 1% of the cost. It does not behave exactly like electricity, however, which has contributed to the scientific community's misunderstanding of it. The Methernitha Community in Switzerland currently has 5 or 6 working models of fuelless, self-running devices that tap this energy.
2) Permanent Magnets.
Dr. Robert Adams (NZ) has developed astounding designs of electric motors, generators and heaters that run on permanent magnets. One such device draws 100 watts of electricity from the source, generates 100 watts to recharge the source, and produces over 140 BTU's of heat in two minutes! Dr. Tom Bearden (USA) has two working models of a permanent magnet powered electrical transformer. It uses a 6-watt electrical input to control the path of a magnetic field coming out of a permanent magnet. By channeling the magnetic field, first to one output coil and then a second output coil, and by doing this repeatedly and rapidly in a "Ping-Pong" fashion, the device can produce a 96-watt electrical output with no moving parts. Bearden calls his device a Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, or MEG. Jean-Louis Naudin has duplicated Bearden's device in France. The principles for this type of device were first disclosed by Frank Richardson (USA) in 1978. Troy Reed (USA) has working models of a special magnetized fan that heats up as it spins. It takes exactly the same amount of energy to spin the fan whether it is generating heat or not. Beyond these developments, multiple inventors have identified working mechanisms that produce motor torque from permanent magnets alone.
3) Mechanical Heaters.
There are two classes of machines that transform a small amount of mechanical energy into a large amount of heat. The best of these purely mechanical designs are the rotating cylinder systems designed by Frenette (USA) and Perkins (USA). In these machines, one cylinder is rotated within another cylinder with about an eighth of an inch of clearance between them. The space between the cylinders is filled with a liquid such as water or oil, and it is this "working fluid" that heats up as the inner cylinder spins. Another method uses magnets mounted on a wheel to produce large eddy currents in a plate of aluminium, causing the aluminium to heat up rapidly. These magnetic heaters have been demonstrated by Muller (Canada), Adams (NZ) and Reed (USA). All of these systems can produce ten times more heat than standard methods using the same energy input.
4) Super-Efficient Electrolysis.
Water can be broken into Hydrogen and Oxygen using electricity. Standard chemistry books claim that this process requires more energy than can be recovered when the gases are recombined. This is true only under the worst case scenario. When water is hit with its own molecular resonant frequency, using a system developed by Stan Meyers (USA) and again recently by Xogen Power, Inc., it collapses into Hydrogen and Oxygen gas with very little electrical input. Also, using different electrolytes (additives that make the water conduct electricity better) changes the efficiency of the process dramatically. It is also known that certain geometric structures and surface textures work better than others do. The implication is that unlimited amounts of Hydrogen fuel can be made to drive engines (like in your car) for the cost of water. Even more amazing is the fact that a special metal alloy was patented by Freedman (USA) in 1957 that spontaneously breaks water into Hydrogen and Oxygen with no outside electrical input and without causing any chemical changes in the metal itself. This means that this special metal alloy can make Hydrogen from water for free, forever.
5) Implosion/Vortex.
All major industrial engines use the release of heat to cause expansion and pressure to produce work, like in your car engine. Nature uses the opposite process of cooling to cause suction and vacuum to produce work, like in a tornado. Viktor Schauberger (Austria) was the first to build working models of Implosion Engines in the 1930's and 1940's. Since that time, Callum Coats has published extensively on Schauberger's work in his book Living Energies and subsequently, a number of researchers have built working models of Implosion Turbine Engines. These are fuelless engines that produce mechanical work from energy accessed from a vacuum. There are also much simpler designs that use vortex motions to tap a combination of gravity and centrifugal force to produce a continuous motion in fluids.
6) Cold Fusion.
In March 1989, two Chemists from Brigham Young University in Utah (USA) announced that they had produced atomic fusion reactions in a simple tabletop device. The claims were "debunked" within 6 months and the public lost interest. Nevertheless, Cold Fusion is very real. Not only has excess heat production been repeatedly documented, but also low energy atomic element transmutation has been catalogued, involving dozens of different reactions! This technology definitely can produce low cost energy and scores of other important industrial processes.
7) Solar Assisted Heat Pumps.
The refrigerator in your kitchen is the only "free energy machine" you currently own. It's an electrically operated heat pump. It uses one amount of energy (electricity) to move three amounts of energy (heat). This gives it a "co-efficient of performance" (COP) of about 3. Your refrigerator uses one amount of electricity to pump three amounts of heat from the inside of the refrigerator to the outside of the refrigerator. This is its typical use, but it is the worst possible way to use the technology. Here's why. A heat pump pumps heat from the "source" of heat to the "sink" or place that absorbs the heat. The "source" of heat should obviously be HOT and the "sink" for heat should obviously be COLD for this process to work the best. In your refrigerator, it's exactly the opposite. The "source" of heat is inside the box, which is COLD, and the "sink" for heat is the room temperature air of your kitchen, which is warmer than the source. This is why the COP remains low for your kitchen refrigerator. But this is not true for all heat pumps. COP's of 8 to 10 are easily attained with solar assisted heat pumps. In such a device, a heat pump draws heat from a solar collector and dumps the heat into a large underground absorber, which remains at 55° F, and mechanical energy is extracted in the transfer. This process is equivalent to a steam engine that extracts mechanical energy between the boiler and the condenser, except that it uses a fluid that "boils" at a much lower temperature than water. One such system that was tested in the 1970's produced 350 hp, measured on a Dynamometer, in a specially designed engine from just 100-sq. ft. of solar collector. (This is NOT the system promoted by Dennis Lee.) The amount of energy it took to run the compressor (input) was less than 20 hp, so this system produced more than 17 times more energy than it took to keep it going! It could power a small neighborhood from the roof of a hot tub gazebo, using exactly the same technology that keeps the food cold in your kitchen. Currently, there is an industrial scale heat pump system just north of Kona, Hawaii that generates electricity from temperature differences in ocean water.
There are dozens of other systems that I have not mentioned, many of them are as viable and well tested as the ones I have just recounted. But this short list is sufficient to make my point: free energy technology is here, now. It offers the world pollution-free, energy abundance for everyone, everywhere. It is now possible to stop the production of "greenhouse gases" and shut down all of the nuclear power plants. We can now desalinate unlimited amounts of seawater at an affordable price, and bring adequate fresh water to even the most remote habitats. Transportation costs and the production costs for just about everything can drop dramatically. Food can even be grown in heated greenhouses in the winter, anywhere. All of these wonderful benefits that can make life on this planet so much easier and better for everyone have been postponed for decades. Why? Whose purposes are served by this postponement?
The Opportunity
What is starting to happen is that inventors are publishing their work, instead of patenting it and keeping it secret. More and more, people are "giving away" information on these technologies in books, videos and websites. While there is still a great deal of useless information about free energy on the Internet, the availability of good information is rising rapidly. Check out the list of websites and other resources at the end of this article.
It is imperative that you begin to gather all of the information you can on real free energy systems. The reason for this is simple. Focus on what you can do now, not on how much there still is to be done. Small, private research groups are working out the details as you read this. Many are committed to publishing their results on the Internet.
If we stand up and refuse to remain ignorant and action-less, we can change the course of history. It is the aggregate of our combined action that can make a difference. Only the mass action that represents our consensus can create the world we want. Nevertheless, free energy technology is here. It is real, and it will change everything about the way we live, work and relate to each other. In the last analysis, free energy technology obsoletes greed and the fear for survival. But like all exercises of Spiritual Faith, we must first manifest the generosity and trust in our own lives
The Source of Free Energy is INSIDE of us. It is that excitement of expressing ourselves freely. It is our Spiritually guided intuition expressing itself without distraction, intimidation or manipulation. It is our open-heartedness. Ideally, the free energy technologies underpin a just society where everyone has enough food, clothing, shelter, self-worth, and the leisure time to contemplate the higher Spiritual meanings of Life. Do we not owe it to each other, to face our fears, and take action to create this future for our children's children?
by Peter Lindemann, D.Sc.
In the late 1880's, trade journals in the electrical sciences were predicting "free electricity" in the near future. Incredible discoveries about the nature of electricity were becoming common place. Nikola Tesla was demonstrating "wireless lighting" and other wonders associated with high frequency currents. There was an excitement about the future like never before.
Within 20 years, there would be automobiles, airplanes, movies, recorded music, telephones, radio, and practical cameras. The Victorian Age was giving way to something totally new. For the first time in history, common people were encouraged to envision a utopian future, filled with abundant modern transportation and communication, as well as jobs, housing and food for everyone. Disease would be conquered, and so would poverty. Life was getting better, and this time, everyone was going to get "a piece of the pie." So, what happened? In the midst of this technological explosion, where did the energy breakthroughs go? Was all of this excitement about "free electricity", which happened just before the beginning of the last century, all just wishful thinking that "real science" eventually disproved?
Current State of Technology
Actually, the answer to that question is NO. In fact, the opposite is true. Spectacular energy technologies were developed right along with the other breakthroughs. Since that time, multiple methods for producing vast amounts of energy at extremely low cost have been developed. None of these technologies have made it to the "open" consumer market as an article of commerce, however. Exactly why this is true will be discussed shortly. But first, I would like to describe to you a short list of "free energy" technologies that I am currently aware of, and that are proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The common feature connecting all of these discoveries, is that they use a small amount of one form of energy to control or release a large amount of a different kind of energy. Many of them tap the underlying aether in some way; a source of energy conveniently ignored by "modern" science.
1) Radiant Energy.
Nikola Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter, T. Henry Moray's Radiant Energy Device, Edwin Gray's EMA Motor, and Paul Baumann's Testatika Machine all run on Radiant Energy. This natural energy form can be gathered directly from the environment (mistakenly called "static" electricity) or extracted from ordinary electricity by the method called "fractionation." Radiant Energy can perform the same wonders as ordinary electricity, at less than 1% of the cost. It does not behave exactly like electricity, however, which has contributed to the scientific community's misunderstanding of it. The Methernitha Community in Switzerland currently has 5 or 6 working models of fuelless, self-running devices that tap this energy.
2) Permanent Magnets.
Dr. Robert Adams (NZ) has developed astounding designs of electric motors, generators and heaters that run on permanent magnets. One such device draws 100 watts of electricity from the source, generates 100 watts to recharge the source, and produces over 140 BTU's of heat in two minutes! Dr. Tom Bearden (USA) has two working models of a permanent magnet powered electrical transformer. It uses a 6-watt electrical input to control the path of a magnetic field coming out of a permanent magnet. By channeling the magnetic field, first to one output coil and then a second output coil, and by doing this repeatedly and rapidly in a "Ping-Pong" fashion, the device can produce a 96-watt electrical output with no moving parts. Bearden calls his device a Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, or MEG. Jean-Louis Naudin has duplicated Bearden's device in France. The principles for this type of device were first disclosed by Frank Richardson (USA) in 1978. Troy Reed (USA) has working models of a special magnetized fan that heats up as it spins. It takes exactly the same amount of energy to spin the fan whether it is generating heat or not. Beyond these developments, multiple inventors have identified working mechanisms that produce motor torque from permanent magnets alone.
3) Mechanical Heaters.
There are two classes of machines that transform a small amount of mechanical energy into a large amount of heat. The best of these purely mechanical designs are the rotating cylinder systems designed by Frenette (USA) and Perkins (USA). In these machines, one cylinder is rotated within another cylinder with about an eighth of an inch of clearance between them. The space between the cylinders is filled with a liquid such as water or oil, and it is this "working fluid" that heats up as the inner cylinder spins. Another method uses magnets mounted on a wheel to produce large eddy currents in a plate of aluminium, causing the aluminium to heat up rapidly. These magnetic heaters have been demonstrated by Muller (Canada), Adams (NZ) and Reed (USA). All of these systems can produce ten times more heat than standard methods using the same energy input.
4) Super-Efficient Electrolysis.
Water can be broken into Hydrogen and Oxygen using electricity. Standard chemistry books claim that this process requires more energy than can be recovered when the gases are recombined. This is true only under the worst case scenario. When water is hit with its own molecular resonant frequency, using a system developed by Stan Meyers (USA) and again recently by Xogen Power, Inc., it collapses into Hydrogen and Oxygen gas with very little electrical input. Also, using different electrolytes (additives that make the water conduct electricity better) changes the efficiency of the process dramatically. It is also known that certain geometric structures and surface textures work better than others do. The implication is that unlimited amounts of Hydrogen fuel can be made to drive engines (like in your car) for the cost of water. Even more amazing is the fact that a special metal alloy was patented by Freedman (USA) in 1957 that spontaneously breaks water into Hydrogen and Oxygen with no outside electrical input and without causing any chemical changes in the metal itself. This means that this special metal alloy can make Hydrogen from water for free, forever.
5) Implosion/Vortex.
All major industrial engines use the release of heat to cause expansion and pressure to produce work, like in your car engine. Nature uses the opposite process of cooling to cause suction and vacuum to produce work, like in a tornado. Viktor Schauberger (Austria) was the first to build working models of Implosion Engines in the 1930's and 1940's. Since that time, Callum Coats has published extensively on Schauberger's work in his book Living Energies and subsequently, a number of researchers have built working models of Implosion Turbine Engines. These are fuelless engines that produce mechanical work from energy accessed from a vacuum. There are also much simpler designs that use vortex motions to tap a combination of gravity and centrifugal force to produce a continuous motion in fluids.
6) Cold Fusion.
In March 1989, two Chemists from Brigham Young University in Utah (USA) announced that they had produced atomic fusion reactions in a simple tabletop device. The claims were "debunked" within 6 months and the public lost interest. Nevertheless, Cold Fusion is very real. Not only has excess heat production been repeatedly documented, but also low energy atomic element transmutation has been catalogued, involving dozens of different reactions! This technology definitely can produce low cost energy and scores of other important industrial processes.
7) Solar Assisted Heat Pumps.
The refrigerator in your kitchen is the only "free energy machine" you currently own. It's an electrically operated heat pump. It uses one amount of energy (electricity) to move three amounts of energy (heat). This gives it a "co-efficient of performance" (COP) of about 3. Your refrigerator uses one amount of electricity to pump three amounts of heat from the inside of the refrigerator to the outside of the refrigerator. This is its typical use, but it is the worst possible way to use the technology. Here's why. A heat pump pumps heat from the "source" of heat to the "sink" or place that absorbs the heat. The "source" of heat should obviously be HOT and the "sink" for heat should obviously be COLD for this process to work the best. In your refrigerator, it's exactly the opposite. The "source" of heat is inside the box, which is COLD, and the "sink" for heat is the room temperature air of your kitchen, which is warmer than the source. This is why the COP remains low for your kitchen refrigerator. But this is not true for all heat pumps. COP's of 8 to 10 are easily attained with solar assisted heat pumps. In such a device, a heat pump draws heat from a solar collector and dumps the heat into a large underground absorber, which remains at 55° F, and mechanical energy is extracted in the transfer. This process is equivalent to a steam engine that extracts mechanical energy between the boiler and the condenser, except that it uses a fluid that "boils" at a much lower temperature than water. One such system that was tested in the 1970's produced 350 hp, measured on a Dynamometer, in a specially designed engine from just 100-sq. ft. of solar collector. (This is NOT the system promoted by Dennis Lee.) The amount of energy it took to run the compressor (input) was less than 20 hp, so this system produced more than 17 times more energy than it took to keep it going! It could power a small neighborhood from the roof of a hot tub gazebo, using exactly the same technology that keeps the food cold in your kitchen. Currently, there is an industrial scale heat pump system just north of Kona, Hawaii that generates electricity from temperature differences in ocean water.
There are dozens of other systems that I have not mentioned, many of them are as viable and well tested as the ones I have just recounted. But this short list is sufficient to make my point: free energy technology is here, now. It offers the world pollution-free, energy abundance for everyone, everywhere. It is now possible to stop the production of "greenhouse gases" and shut down all of the nuclear power plants. We can now desalinate unlimited amounts of seawater at an affordable price, and bring adequate fresh water to even the most remote habitats. Transportation costs and the production costs for just about everything can drop dramatically. Food can even be grown in heated greenhouses in the winter, anywhere. All of these wonderful benefits that can make life on this planet so much easier and better for everyone have been postponed for decades. Why? Whose purposes are served by this postponement?
The Opportunity
What is starting to happen is that inventors are publishing their work, instead of patenting it and keeping it secret. More and more, people are "giving away" information on these technologies in books, videos and websites. While there is still a great deal of useless information about free energy on the Internet, the availability of good information is rising rapidly. Check out the list of websites and other resources at the end of this article.
It is imperative that you begin to gather all of the information you can on real free energy systems. The reason for this is simple. Focus on what you can do now, not on how much there still is to be done. Small, private research groups are working out the details as you read this. Many are committed to publishing their results on the Internet.
If we stand up and refuse to remain ignorant and action-less, we can change the course of history. It is the aggregate of our combined action that can make a difference. Only the mass action that represents our consensus can create the world we want. Nevertheless, free energy technology is here. It is real, and it will change everything about the way we live, work and relate to each other. In the last analysis, free energy technology obsoletes greed and the fear for survival. But like all exercises of Spiritual Faith, we must first manifest the generosity and trust in our own lives
The Source of Free Energy is INSIDE of us. It is that excitement of expressing ourselves freely. It is our Spiritually guided intuition expressing itself without distraction, intimidation or manipulation. It is our open-heartedness. Ideally, the free energy technologies underpin a just society where everyone has enough food, clothing, shelter, self-worth, and the leisure time to contemplate the higher Spiritual meanings of Life. Do we not owe it to each other, to face our fears, and take action to create this future for our children's children?
The Philosophers' Stone
How to Transmute the Elements by Engineering the Geometry of Standing Waves
A series of experiments has been carried out in Japan proving that chickens fed a diet deficient in calcium produced, as the end product of their biological processes, more calcium than they were ginven to live on. The conclusion is that the chickens created the calcium they needed by transmuting potassium.
This discovery challenges the basic concepts of science, and the more critically a discovery challenges the foundations of scientific belief, the less it is examined at all. But if potassium can be transmuted into calcium (and by chickens, no less), we had best construct a new model of the atom to explain how this might be possible. So let's get started, at the level of the subatomic particles that seem to be giving theorists so much difficulty.
After observing that light travels in straight lines to cast sharp shadows, Isaac Newton deduced that light beams could exist only if radiant energy possessed the characteristics of atomic particles. But Sir Isaac went on to pass beams of light through prisms observing the spectrum of colors projected. The fractioning of light into colors is possible only if radiant energy possesses the properties of waves. The problem became a matter of determining whether light was particulate or wavy in nature. Theorists decided that the ultimate elemental substance was both particle and wave, depending upon what it happened to be doing with itself when observed. Then realists proceeded to advance science without caring what light was. Nevertheless, the problem for the philosophers remains. The properties of particles categorically exclude the properties of waves, so how is it possible for an elemental substance, whatever it is, to manifest both properties in successions?
After the greatest scientists since Newton have given up, all a lay person has to do is take a couple of cartons of quarter-inch ball bearings to a billiard parlor, rent a table, and spread balls on the baize.
After you have managed to arrange them with a mathematically random distribution, you will see that each ball is equally distant from its neighbours Absolute chaos is identical to perfect order.
Now try to rearrange the balls so that groups are allowed, but the groupings are mathematically random. Eventually the pattern formed by the balls will follow a density of distribution described by the Bell Frequency Curve of random statistics. The Bell Frequency Curve is a sine-wave form; on a plane surface it is manifest as regular clusters, with small groups of roughly equal numbers being roughly equal distances apart. The smaller groups congregate into larger groups until the entire field can be described as a single sine-wave form of low frequency. Once again, you prove that utter disorder is identical to total organization.
If the balls are small enough and numerous enough in relation to the area you have to spread them on, you will discover the aggregations of particles will assume the pattern of a spiral generated by phi, the ratio between successive numbers in a series extended by adding consecutive numbers together; it is the ratio of 1:1.1618. All natural growth eventually fallows the form of a spiral generated by a phi ratio, from the distributions of atoms to the distributions of stars in galaxies. (In other words, the spiral structure of gas clouds in interstellar space is not necessarily due to the process of gravitational contraction and centrifugal force, as proponents of the Nebular Hypothesis of stellar generation would have us believe. The spiral structure is an inevitable consequence of random distribution.)
You can perform this experiment at less cost by making pencil dots on a large piece of paper, but you will be bothered by con- stant erasing until you get the dots distributed properly. With pencil and paper, however, you can perform the converse experiment. Draw lines at random, each line representing a wave front. If you have enough lines on enough paper, and enough randomness, the result will look exactly like the random distribution of balls on a billiard table, as the intersections of lines form groupings of density.
Whether you perceive a ball to be an atomic particle or an aggregation of particles depends upon the scale of your frame of view. Whether you perceive an aggregation to be a particle or a wave depends upon the scale of your resolution. At the limit of resolution, all structures register on all instruments of measurement as particles. And all structures that cannot be resolved sharply by the instrument of measurement register as waves. So the nature of the ultimate element is determined by the instruments of measurement; all we can really know about it is what our instruments measure. Whether you choose to interpret reality as waves or particles depends entirely on what you want to do. The manifestations of energy - i.e., motion - yield measurements as waves; the manifestations of static material yield measurements as particles.
As it happens, everything is moving. Therefore, all events yield accurate measurements only as wave functions. The use of the laser for measurement establishes the wave as the elemental unit of space, time, motion, and energy.
As when Pythagoras studied music, harmonics is still taught from the model of a vibrating string. A plucked string vibrates back and forth as a unit, forming a standing-wave structure, emitting vibrations through the air to be heard as a musical sound. The tone is the fundamental frequency of the standing wave.
As the string vibrates as a unit, it also divides itself into two halves along its length, and each half vibrates as two individual standing waves independently of the fundamental wave. The frequency of the half lengths is twice the frequency of the fundamental, and the sound emitted is the second harmonic overtone, an octave higher than the fundamental.
And at the same time as the string vibrates as a unit and as independent halves, it also divides its length into three equal parts, each third vibrating independently to emit a sound three times the frequency of the fundamental, called the third harmonic overtone. At the same time, the string also divides itself into fractional lengths of quarters, fifths, sixths, and so on to the elemental molecular unit of vibration, generating successively higher harmonic overtones all the way. The distribution of energy among the overtones determines the unique sound characteristic of each instrument. This is the way harmonics is taught.
Only one thing is wrong with the course of study: The instructors got it all backward, just as electricians are taught that electricity flows in the opposite direction from the way it really flows. Now all the musicians and acoustic engineers will protest; everyone can see the vibrating string, and the course in harmonics describes exactly what you see doesn't it? No, what is really happening is random motion. Whether or not you can hear the vibrations of a musical string above the audible threshold, the string is always vibrating due to the random molecular agitation of heat. (As far as the string is concerned, the extra vibration it gets from being plucked is just more heat.) Molecular motion along the string arranges itself into increasingly longer sine waves according to the Bell Frequency Curve of random distribution, until all the various fractional vibrations come into phase to generate the fundamental frequency. Fractions which do not coincide with the lower harmonics travel back and forth along the length of the string as moving waves until they come into direct opposition, transforming them into electromagnetic radiation. It's the loss of energy through electromagmetic transformation that causes the molecular vibrations to die down.
Electricians continue to learn their subject backward because which way the current flows makes no difference to the wiring; and besides, alternating current flows both ways. So what difference does it make whether harmonics is taught as division or integrations. Well, as long as you believe electricity flows from positive to negative, you will never be able to discover and implement electronics.
If you learn harmonics by dirtributing ball bearings on a pool table, the way Pythagoras did after he was initiated into the higher dimensions and forswore beans, you will discover how the universe unfolds.
An infinite number of particles distributed and moving randomly through infinite space will divide themselves along a fundamental axis; one half moving in one direction and the other half moving in the opposite direction. This flow corresponds to gravity and antigravity. The reason we rarely see antigravity is that all particles belonging to the opposite pole have already departed in the other direction, and very few are left around here.
Each half of the universal particles traveling in opposite directions along the fundamental axis will divide into two groups again, moving in opposite directions along a plane at right angles to the gravitational axis. This secondary harmonic corresponds to the centrifugal and centripetal forces. The second harmonic will also subdivide into another pair of equal and opposite accelerations that can be represented as a cylinder parallel to the centrifugal-centripetal plane. The tertiary harmonic corresponds to the precessional forces.
Like the conventional view of the musical string, the universe can be described as subdividing itself successively until the ultimate particle is reached whatever that ultimate particle is.
Of course, the universe does not really divide itself in this manner any more than the musical string does. It assembles its harmonics from random motion to coherent undertones. We proceed to analyze from the fundamental to the overtones only because it is convenient for our habit of thinking. We shall never know where the universal fundamental axis is, nor what the ultimate particle is, because in an infinite universe we must always find ourselves exactly in the middle of an infinite extension in both directions of whatever dimension we happen to be considering. What we call gravity, centrifugal-centripetal, and precessional forces are merely arbitrary conventions established for the convenience of our habitual mode of perception.
Once we perceive that all parts of space contain an indefinite number of particles moving at random to form the force fields we are familiar with, we understand how to engineer field energies directly. You see, one phase of precessional acceleration proceeds in the same direction as antigranty. To invent an antigravity engine, therefore, all you have to do is amplify the centrifugal harmonic until the antigravitational phase of the precessional harmonic exceeds the acceleration of gravity, and then eliminate the gravitational phase. This is exactly what Professor Eric Laithwaite calculated; he failed only because of errors in arithmetic. Other engineers have found the errors and corrected them. Whether or not the Laithwaite Engine worked, the fact remains that all antigravity engineering and all other field engineering can be reduced to the geometry of harmonics generated by random particles.
An infinite universe defined by an infinite number of randomly moving particles establishes the scientific principle of parity, meaning that energy will be equal in all directions and at all locations. In current physics, the concept of the cosmic hologram is still not accepted, so panty is limited to equality of motion in all directions.
When all the vectors of the gravitational-fundamental vibration and the centrifugal-centripetal secondary harmonic and the precessional tertiary harmonic and all the other harmonics are integrated into a resultant, the trajectory of any given particle must follow the course of a spiral vortex with a phi generator. Therefore, any part of space you choose as a frame of reference will be defined by a fundamental field vortex, subdivided into an indefinite number of harmonic overtone vortices.
A vortex can spin in only one direction. Parity demands that for every vortex there must be a countervortex. This is why all dynamic structures are created, like men and women, in equal and opposite numbers.
Two vortices spinning in the same direction flow in opposite directions along their interface, Therefore, if pushed together. they will annihilate each other. This is why when particle meets antiparticle, they are transformed into radiant energy. The closer two vortices spinning in the same direction are pushed together, the more energy is brought into opposition along their interface. Therefore, all vortices rotating in the same direction will tend to move away from each other until they are spaced equally apart.
Conversely, two vortices spinning in opposite directions are flowing in the same direction along their interface. Therefore, they tend to merge. But they are not drawn together so much as pushed together by the pressure of similar vortices.
It is evident that the mechanics of vortices determines the force physicists call charge. Spin determines polarity.
Physical experiment has proven conclusively that electrons and protons are monopoles. The fact that electric charge is monopolar while magnetic charge is dipolar is one of the problems in the search for a Unified-Field Theory. If the vortex model is valid, however, electrons and protons should be dipolar, depending on which way they are oriented. But protons always repel each other, so all respectable physicists are convinced the vortex model is mistaken.
But protons do not always repel each other! When they come close enough together, they cleave together with greater force than any glue known. Physicists call this attraction the nuclear force, and they are unable to explain why it can be so powerful, but only over extremely close distances, within the nucleus of the atom. The answer is self-evident by a simple experiment. If you float a number of bar magnets in a fluid medium, and enclose the experimental setup in an electromagnetic field, the field will align all the magnets in the same direction and they will repel each other like protons. But if the magnets are small enough, and are brought closely enough together, the mutual attraction of their opposite poles will overcome the force of the external field keeping them aligned - and they will flip, one relative to the other. With opposite poles tightly together, they will cleave together most tenaciously over a short distance. But once separated beyond the critical distance, the external field will align them in the same direction, and they will repel each other again. Scientists have come to perceive the electromagnetic field aligning particles in an atom as the electromagnetic field, so when particles flip and join in the nucleus with a thousand times more force than the attraction between proton and electron, a radically new force is postulated.
As it happens, Immanuel Velikovsky proposed an equivalent hypothesis to explain why planets in the Solar System do not collide. You see, if there is mutual gravitational attraction among the planets, they must clump together over the course of time. But observations prove that the planets maintain the greatest possible distance from each other. When an extreme condition is maintained indefinitely, you cannot explain it as accidental; there must be a physical force keeping the planets apart. Unfortunately, it was Velikovsky who proposed this hypothesis, and no scientist who is not independently wealthy and careless of reputation can afford to prove anything that Velikovsky said.
Field forces are defined, by many criteria, so physicists may be on firm ground when they establish a nuclear force distinct from the electromagnetic force - but the experiments proving electrical particles to be monopolar do not contribute to that support.
When harmonic calculations are transferred to spaces of more than one dimension (the musical string is the standard object lesson), the same principles are assumed to be valid. As a consequence, spherical harmonics is interpreted as a circular wave expanding from a point of origin on the global surface, and the harmonic ratios are measured along a radius. This conception works very well as far as it goes, but as you will learn, plane harmonics has some extremely practical differences from linear harmonics.
A plane cannot exist as a vibrating structure unless it has at least three sides. The triangle, therefore, must be established as the fundamental unit of plane harmonics. When the sides of an equilateral triangle are bisected and joined, the result is four triangles, just as a square makes four squares when its sides are bisected and joined. The operations of plane harmonics apparently observe the rules of plane geometry.
William H. Whamond, writing in Pursuit, pointed out that if the sides of a polygon are not of a ratio that mutually reinforces each other's vibrations, the plane structure will disintegrate. All equal-sided polygons maintain their sides by mutual reinforcement, but all those which cannot be triangulated in harmonic ratios must collapse under pressure. It is surprising that Buckminster Fuller was able to build a career without realizing the function of harmonics in maintaining basic stability of structure.
Whamond went further to point out that although stabilizing the dimensions of diagonals may be sufficient for practical structures, theoretical requirements are not satisfied unless the diametric vibratiom reinforce the perimetric vibrations to establish the polygon's rigidity through and through. The simplest polygon generated by a mutually harmonic reinforcement of both sides and center is the hexagon. This is the probable reason why six acquired a reputation for being the perfect number among the ancient philosophers, and why a circle's circumference was accepted as being three times its diameter. although every wheelwright knew better.
If you draw a grid of squares, and then draw all the diagonals, you will find yourself with a grid composed of two sets of squares. One set is rotated forty-five degrees from the other, and their dimension are related to each other by a ratio of the square root of 2. This self-evident transformation assumes engineering significance when harmonic structures extend into higher dimensions.
As Buckminster Fuller pointed out, not only is the triangle the basic unit of plane space, but the principle of triangulation also establishes the tetrahedron as the basic unit of solid space. Like the triangle, however, the tetrahedron maintains its structure only by the triangulated rigidity of the mutually reinforcing vibrations of its sides. In order to possess internal stability, the tetrahedron must be doubled, one intersecting another, with points aligned on a polar axis.
To establish stability, tetrahedrons must always be manifest in mutually opposed and supporting pairs in this way. When this geometrical structure takes form from universal vibrations, however, it is not the simple pair of tetrahedrons it appears to be at first sight.
If lines are drawn joining all the points of the paired tetrahedrons, you have a cube. If lines are drawn between the centers of each face of the cube, they form the edges of an octahedron.
If circles scribed around the bases of the two tetrahedrons are divided into five equal arcs and all the points joined by lines, a symmetrical polyhedron defined by twenty equilateral triangles is defined. If all the points are joined by lines through the center of the icosahedron, twenty equal tetrahedrons will be defined. The space defined by an icosahedron is stabilized by mutually reinforcing resonance around all sides, along all edges, and through all diameters. Like the hexagon, the twenty faceted icosahedron is the perfect solid.
Now, bisecting all the lines forming an icosahedron produces a twelve sided symmetrical polyhedron called a dodecahedron - the solid projection of the five-pointed star circumscribed by a pentagon. All ratios of the dodecahedron approximate the values of various mystical triangles, but they are incommensurate with the icosahedron by integers; the internal structure of the dodecahedron is irrational, like pi, phi, root 2, root 3, root 5, etc. As you know, the diagonal of a square is related to its sides by root 2 and the diagonal cross of a square is also the negative of the square. The dodecahedron is the negative of the icosahedron. In this context, the octahedron is the negative of the cube. Because a tetrahedron is the elemental unit of solid space, no other polyhedron can function as its inferior negative, so the tetrahedron is rotated 180 degrees to function as its own solid negative. Lines drawn from the points of a tetrahedron to its internal center form a linear structure called the Miraldi angle, resembling a caltrop, this is the true negative of the tetrahedron, but the field rotation required to transform a tetrahedron into a caltrop projects the structure into fewer dimensions.
Now, the relationship between a square and its diagonals is a 45-degree rotation on plane space, which is the projection of a rotation of 90 degrees in hyperspace. The relationship between the tetrahedron, the octahedron, the cube, the dodecahedron, and the icosahedron is also established by a definite rotation through hyperspace. The notes of a musical scale are also defined by a definite rotation of energy through hyperspace, which transforms one frequency into another. As an illustration, rotation through hyperspace transforms the wavelength of the side of a square to the wavelength of its diagonal. The ratio of the side to the diagonal is the same as the ratio between G and C on the musical scale.
You have just made a discovery sought by philosophers throughout history; the regular Platonic solids are related to each other as musical notes on a hexatonic scale. Extend the sides of the dodecahedron until they meet, and you have the frame of a pair of tetrahedrons exactly twice the size of the pair you started with to continue the scale on the second octave. You have discovered the Music of the Spheres.
Parity is not satisfied by the creation of nuclear particles in the form of equal and opposing standing-wave vortices. The axes of the pair, you see, are both aligned in the same direction; that is a manifestation of directional preference. In order that axes be balanced in all directions, particles must congregate in groups of six; three pairs of mutually opposed particles with the axis of each pair at right angles to the other two. This assemblage puts each vortex at the vertex of an octahedron.
The octahedron is not stable because each pair of vortices grind gears against the other two. But if the equatorial pair of particles move away from each other along the polar axis, the six can mesh together like two pairs of crown gear clusters fitted at right angles to each other.
The vortex model suggests that the basic particle is likely to be composed of three pairs of finer particles bound together in the harmonic structure of an octahedron. The geometry of the three pairs bears a striking correspondence to the characteristics of the elusive quark. Charm, beauty, and color appear to he manifestations of angle in hyperspace; axial angles account for fractional electric charge.
The octahedron still does not quite satisfy parity. The polar pinions of the crown gear clusters are both spinning in the same direction; this will give the octahedron a net charge. If four more pair of vortices, forming the negative of the octahedron, are spaced in a cube arrangement between the vertices of the octahedron, all the gears will spin in the right direction, all spins will be equally opposed, and all axes will be balanced in all directions. The cube-octa is the likely conformation of the neutron. Proof will be slow coming because at least half the particles are in the quantum field at the instant any measurement is made; this is why the quarks are so damned elusive.
The cube-octa contains fourteen particles. If struck, it could collapse, with twelve arranging themselves around one in the center, in the form of a dodecahedron, while the fourteenth spins free into orbit. The transformation is remarkable similar to what appears to happen when a neutron is converted by impact into a proton and an electron.
If the proton has the geometry of a dodecahedron, it will be a charged particle, so every proton will seek another proton as a mate. This may be why hydrogen is a diatomic molecule. After the neutron collapses, parity is not reestablished absolutely until the helium atom is formed. This would explain why helium is monatomic, with all the properties of an overgrown neutron.
Now that we have our electrons, protons, and neutrons straightened out, let's put them all together!
Niels Bohr described the atom as a miniature Solar System, with the nucleus serving as a Sun, orbited by electron `planets'. The Bohr model is represented in all popular scientific literature despite the fact that any child can see it must be impossible. You see, if you have electrons orbiting in all directions around a nucleus, they are bound to collide; and on the atomic time scale, eventually is something sooner than a microsecond.
The atomic traffic problem was solved by gaving each electron a different radius to orbit, but this solution won't work, either. An electron's wavelength is defined by its orbit. If every electron has its own orbital radius, each electron will manifest a different wavelength. This does not happen.
Erwin Schrdinger resolved the problem by proposing that electrons were standing waves, but his equations required three dimensions for each electron. Although the standing-wave equations were accepted, the necessity for multiplied space was not. As a consequence, mathematical physicists are still searching for a model that will make the atom possible! They have given up seeking a model that can be represented as a mechanical structure, and physics builds increasingdy complicated and abstract equations.
The model of solid harmonics indicates that the node of the electronic standing wave revolves around the equator of the hydrogen nucleus. The node requires only half the quantum orbital space it has, so another electron can share the same shell to form a helium atom. To maintain parity, each moves to a polar hemisphere separated by the equator, and revolves in opposite directions.
Space is insufficient for a third electron, so the lithium atom must start another shell. The second shell has enough area for eight electrons, so the surface of each hemisphere is divided harmonically into successive halves, thirds, and quarters. Apparently the equatorial division establishes a hemispherical sector that is never crossed. The eight facets form the sides of an octahedron (the ubiquitous octahedron again) and each facet has just enough room to hold an electron; each facet is a quantum unit of space relative to the frequency of the electron. When the octahedron is complete, the atom is electrically neu- tral, as all octahedrons with their gears running smoothly are supposed to he, Neon is almost as inert as helium, but parity must be observed; and a second octahedron is laid over the first with the spins of each electron aligned at a different angle. The fourth orbital shell has sufficient radius for its surface to hold many more electrons. If you move the eight electrons to the vertices of the octahedron harmonic structure, so that each hemisphere is covered by a square pyramid with the equatorial cleavage separating them, you will find enough room to add another electron to the center of each facet, defining a cube- octa. The total of electrons will he eighteen; this is the number of electrons proven to be established in the subsequent shells in the generation of the Periodical Table of Elements. The electrons of each shell align their axes to balance parity.
But apparently it is a long way from helium to the next perfect atomic geometry. If the equatorial cleft is retained throughout the generation of elements, the model of heavier atoms will assume the dumbbell configuration of the electromagnetic field surrounding a bar magnet. (Structural weakness at the waist may be the reason that atoms heavier than bismuth break spontanenusly.)
To illustrate how the geometry works in prarctice, the atom of carbon has a pair of miter caps, one over each polar hemisphere. There is space for two more electrons in each hemisphere to complete the octahedron. When it takes the electrons attached to hydrogen atoms, the hydrogen nucleus is going to stick out as a lump. In order to maintain parity, the angles at which the hydrogen atoms will join the carbon atom to form methane conform to the points of a tetrahedron. This fact is taken for granted in stereochemistry today, but established authorities put down the first chemist who suggested that molecules had solid structures, quite different from the empirical formulas used to describe them.
The oxygen atom is capped by three-sided pyramids with room for one more electron in each hemisphere. Parity allows a 120-degree angle between the hydrogen nuclei, and so water forms ice crystals in a hexagonal geometry.
Outside of the innermost shells, electrons do not orbit the nucleus of their atoms at all; they orbit the space of their octahedronal facet at a constant radius. This geometry makes it possible to avert collisions and maintain a constant frequency of orbit, regardless of an electron's distance from its atomic center. When atoms are excited by absorbing radiation, a rotation in hyperspace causes the shells to move out to a greater radius from the nucleus to the positions calculated from experiment.
You have been taken along this line of superficial physics and chemistry to give you a basis for the possibility that all molecular structures are generated from the elementary geometry of the Platonic solids, with the elements combined in various combinations of harmonically integrated angles, like crystals. If this is so, then each chemical element and compound will resonate in sympathy to a specific geometric solid. Furthermore, each solid structure can be excited and modulated by musical sound. This is not a novel concept, but the very basis of alchemy.
Now, each solid can be transformed into another structure by a regular rotation through the hyperspace of the quantum field. Each chemical atom is also transformed by a rotation of its geometrical structure in hyperspace. Therefore, by employing tuned vibrations it is theoretically possible to transform lead into gold (or gold into oil, which is considerably more valuable these days).
Fitting experimental data to the theory of solid harmonics is a task requiring professional competence. Even if the essential concept is correct, coflicting data is turning up day by day inspiring many false starts.
In the meantime, back at the bench, we have discovered the Philosophers' Stone. If a birdbrain can transmute the elements, so can engineering geniuses - as soon as we figure out how those stupid chickens did it.
[Source: T.B.Pawlicki - How to transmute the elements by engineering the geometry of standing waves]
A series of experiments has been carried out in Japan proving that chickens fed a diet deficient in calcium produced, as the end product of their biological processes, more calcium than they were ginven to live on. The conclusion is that the chickens created the calcium they needed by transmuting potassium.
This discovery challenges the basic concepts of science, and the more critically a discovery challenges the foundations of scientific belief, the less it is examined at all. But if potassium can be transmuted into calcium (and by chickens, no less), we had best construct a new model of the atom to explain how this might be possible. So let's get started, at the level of the subatomic particles that seem to be giving theorists so much difficulty.
After observing that light travels in straight lines to cast sharp shadows, Isaac Newton deduced that light beams could exist only if radiant energy possessed the characteristics of atomic particles. But Sir Isaac went on to pass beams of light through prisms observing the spectrum of colors projected. The fractioning of light into colors is possible only if radiant energy possesses the properties of waves. The problem became a matter of determining whether light was particulate or wavy in nature. Theorists decided that the ultimate elemental substance was both particle and wave, depending upon what it happened to be doing with itself when observed. Then realists proceeded to advance science without caring what light was. Nevertheless, the problem for the philosophers remains. The properties of particles categorically exclude the properties of waves, so how is it possible for an elemental substance, whatever it is, to manifest both properties in successions?
After the greatest scientists since Newton have given up, all a lay person has to do is take a couple of cartons of quarter-inch ball bearings to a billiard parlor, rent a table, and spread balls on the baize.
After you have managed to arrange them with a mathematically random distribution, you will see that each ball is equally distant from its neighbours Absolute chaos is identical to perfect order.
Now try to rearrange the balls so that groups are allowed, but the groupings are mathematically random. Eventually the pattern formed by the balls will follow a density of distribution described by the Bell Frequency Curve of random statistics. The Bell Frequency Curve is a sine-wave form; on a plane surface it is manifest as regular clusters, with small groups of roughly equal numbers being roughly equal distances apart. The smaller groups congregate into larger groups until the entire field can be described as a single sine-wave form of low frequency. Once again, you prove that utter disorder is identical to total organization.
If the balls are small enough and numerous enough in relation to the area you have to spread them on, you will discover the aggregations of particles will assume the pattern of a spiral generated by phi, the ratio between successive numbers in a series extended by adding consecutive numbers together; it is the ratio of 1:1.1618. All natural growth eventually fallows the form of a spiral generated by a phi ratio, from the distributions of atoms to the distributions of stars in galaxies. (In other words, the spiral structure of gas clouds in interstellar space is not necessarily due to the process of gravitational contraction and centrifugal force, as proponents of the Nebular Hypothesis of stellar generation would have us believe. The spiral structure is an inevitable consequence of random distribution.)
You can perform this experiment at less cost by making pencil dots on a large piece of paper, but you will be bothered by con- stant erasing until you get the dots distributed properly. With pencil and paper, however, you can perform the converse experiment. Draw lines at random, each line representing a wave front. If you have enough lines on enough paper, and enough randomness, the result will look exactly like the random distribution of balls on a billiard table, as the intersections of lines form groupings of density.
Whether you perceive a ball to be an atomic particle or an aggregation of particles depends upon the scale of your frame of view. Whether you perceive an aggregation to be a particle or a wave depends upon the scale of your resolution. At the limit of resolution, all structures register on all instruments of measurement as particles. And all structures that cannot be resolved sharply by the instrument of measurement register as waves. So the nature of the ultimate element is determined by the instruments of measurement; all we can really know about it is what our instruments measure. Whether you choose to interpret reality as waves or particles depends entirely on what you want to do. The manifestations of energy - i.e., motion - yield measurements as waves; the manifestations of static material yield measurements as particles.
As it happens, everything is moving. Therefore, all events yield accurate measurements only as wave functions. The use of the laser for measurement establishes the wave as the elemental unit of space, time, motion, and energy.
As when Pythagoras studied music, harmonics is still taught from the model of a vibrating string. A plucked string vibrates back and forth as a unit, forming a standing-wave structure, emitting vibrations through the air to be heard as a musical sound. The tone is the fundamental frequency of the standing wave.
As the string vibrates as a unit, it also divides itself into two halves along its length, and each half vibrates as two individual standing waves independently of the fundamental wave. The frequency of the half lengths is twice the frequency of the fundamental, and the sound emitted is the second harmonic overtone, an octave higher than the fundamental.
And at the same time as the string vibrates as a unit and as independent halves, it also divides its length into three equal parts, each third vibrating independently to emit a sound three times the frequency of the fundamental, called the third harmonic overtone. At the same time, the string also divides itself into fractional lengths of quarters, fifths, sixths, and so on to the elemental molecular unit of vibration, generating successively higher harmonic overtones all the way. The distribution of energy among the overtones determines the unique sound characteristic of each instrument. This is the way harmonics is taught.
Only one thing is wrong with the course of study: The instructors got it all backward, just as electricians are taught that electricity flows in the opposite direction from the way it really flows. Now all the musicians and acoustic engineers will protest; everyone can see the vibrating string, and the course in harmonics describes exactly what you see doesn't it? No, what is really happening is random motion. Whether or not you can hear the vibrations of a musical string above the audible threshold, the string is always vibrating due to the random molecular agitation of heat. (As far as the string is concerned, the extra vibration it gets from being plucked is just more heat.) Molecular motion along the string arranges itself into increasingly longer sine waves according to the Bell Frequency Curve of random distribution, until all the various fractional vibrations come into phase to generate the fundamental frequency. Fractions which do not coincide with the lower harmonics travel back and forth along the length of the string as moving waves until they come into direct opposition, transforming them into electromagnetic radiation. It's the loss of energy through electromagmetic transformation that causes the molecular vibrations to die down.
Electricians continue to learn their subject backward because which way the current flows makes no difference to the wiring; and besides, alternating current flows both ways. So what difference does it make whether harmonics is taught as division or integrations. Well, as long as you believe electricity flows from positive to negative, you will never be able to discover and implement electronics.
If you learn harmonics by dirtributing ball bearings on a pool table, the way Pythagoras did after he was initiated into the higher dimensions and forswore beans, you will discover how the universe unfolds.
An infinite number of particles distributed and moving randomly through infinite space will divide themselves along a fundamental axis; one half moving in one direction and the other half moving in the opposite direction. This flow corresponds to gravity and antigravity. The reason we rarely see antigravity is that all particles belonging to the opposite pole have already departed in the other direction, and very few are left around here.
Each half of the universal particles traveling in opposite directions along the fundamental axis will divide into two groups again, moving in opposite directions along a plane at right angles to the gravitational axis. This secondary harmonic corresponds to the centrifugal and centripetal forces. The second harmonic will also subdivide into another pair of equal and opposite accelerations that can be represented as a cylinder parallel to the centrifugal-centripetal plane. The tertiary harmonic corresponds to the precessional forces.
Like the conventional view of the musical string, the universe can be described as subdividing itself successively until the ultimate particle is reached whatever that ultimate particle is.
Of course, the universe does not really divide itself in this manner any more than the musical string does. It assembles its harmonics from random motion to coherent undertones. We proceed to analyze from the fundamental to the overtones only because it is convenient for our habit of thinking. We shall never know where the universal fundamental axis is, nor what the ultimate particle is, because in an infinite universe we must always find ourselves exactly in the middle of an infinite extension in both directions of whatever dimension we happen to be considering. What we call gravity, centrifugal-centripetal, and precessional forces are merely arbitrary conventions established for the convenience of our habitual mode of perception.
Once we perceive that all parts of space contain an indefinite number of particles moving at random to form the force fields we are familiar with, we understand how to engineer field energies directly. You see, one phase of precessional acceleration proceeds in the same direction as antigranty. To invent an antigravity engine, therefore, all you have to do is amplify the centrifugal harmonic until the antigravitational phase of the precessional harmonic exceeds the acceleration of gravity, and then eliminate the gravitational phase. This is exactly what Professor Eric Laithwaite calculated; he failed only because of errors in arithmetic. Other engineers have found the errors and corrected them. Whether or not the Laithwaite Engine worked, the fact remains that all antigravity engineering and all other field engineering can be reduced to the geometry of harmonics generated by random particles.
An infinite universe defined by an infinite number of randomly moving particles establishes the scientific principle of parity, meaning that energy will be equal in all directions and at all locations. In current physics, the concept of the cosmic hologram is still not accepted, so panty is limited to equality of motion in all directions.
When all the vectors of the gravitational-fundamental vibration and the centrifugal-centripetal secondary harmonic and the precessional tertiary harmonic and all the other harmonics are integrated into a resultant, the trajectory of any given particle must follow the course of a spiral vortex with a phi generator. Therefore, any part of space you choose as a frame of reference will be defined by a fundamental field vortex, subdivided into an indefinite number of harmonic overtone vortices.
A vortex can spin in only one direction. Parity demands that for every vortex there must be a countervortex. This is why all dynamic structures are created, like men and women, in equal and opposite numbers.
Two vortices spinning in the same direction flow in opposite directions along their interface, Therefore, if pushed together. they will annihilate each other. This is why when particle meets antiparticle, they are transformed into radiant energy. The closer two vortices spinning in the same direction are pushed together, the more energy is brought into opposition along their interface. Therefore, all vortices rotating in the same direction will tend to move away from each other until they are spaced equally apart.
Conversely, two vortices spinning in opposite directions are flowing in the same direction along their interface. Therefore, they tend to merge. But they are not drawn together so much as pushed together by the pressure of similar vortices.
It is evident that the mechanics of vortices determines the force physicists call charge. Spin determines polarity.
Physical experiment has proven conclusively that electrons and protons are monopoles. The fact that electric charge is monopolar while magnetic charge is dipolar is one of the problems in the search for a Unified-Field Theory. If the vortex model is valid, however, electrons and protons should be dipolar, depending on which way they are oriented. But protons always repel each other, so all respectable physicists are convinced the vortex model is mistaken.
But protons do not always repel each other! When they come close enough together, they cleave together with greater force than any glue known. Physicists call this attraction the nuclear force, and they are unable to explain why it can be so powerful, but only over extremely close distances, within the nucleus of the atom. The answer is self-evident by a simple experiment. If you float a number of bar magnets in a fluid medium, and enclose the experimental setup in an electromagnetic field, the field will align all the magnets in the same direction and they will repel each other like protons. But if the magnets are small enough, and are brought closely enough together, the mutual attraction of their opposite poles will overcome the force of the external field keeping them aligned - and they will flip, one relative to the other. With opposite poles tightly together, they will cleave together most tenaciously over a short distance. But once separated beyond the critical distance, the external field will align them in the same direction, and they will repel each other again. Scientists have come to perceive the electromagnetic field aligning particles in an atom as the electromagnetic field, so when particles flip and join in the nucleus with a thousand times more force than the attraction between proton and electron, a radically new force is postulated.
As it happens, Immanuel Velikovsky proposed an equivalent hypothesis to explain why planets in the Solar System do not collide. You see, if there is mutual gravitational attraction among the planets, they must clump together over the course of time. But observations prove that the planets maintain the greatest possible distance from each other. When an extreme condition is maintained indefinitely, you cannot explain it as accidental; there must be a physical force keeping the planets apart. Unfortunately, it was Velikovsky who proposed this hypothesis, and no scientist who is not independently wealthy and careless of reputation can afford to prove anything that Velikovsky said.
Field forces are defined, by many criteria, so physicists may be on firm ground when they establish a nuclear force distinct from the electromagnetic force - but the experiments proving electrical particles to be monopolar do not contribute to that support.
When harmonic calculations are transferred to spaces of more than one dimension (the musical string is the standard object lesson), the same principles are assumed to be valid. As a consequence, spherical harmonics is interpreted as a circular wave expanding from a point of origin on the global surface, and the harmonic ratios are measured along a radius. This conception works very well as far as it goes, but as you will learn, plane harmonics has some extremely practical differences from linear harmonics.
A plane cannot exist as a vibrating structure unless it has at least three sides. The triangle, therefore, must be established as the fundamental unit of plane harmonics. When the sides of an equilateral triangle are bisected and joined, the result is four triangles, just as a square makes four squares when its sides are bisected and joined. The operations of plane harmonics apparently observe the rules of plane geometry.
William H. Whamond, writing in Pursuit, pointed out that if the sides of a polygon are not of a ratio that mutually reinforces each other's vibrations, the plane structure will disintegrate. All equal-sided polygons maintain their sides by mutual reinforcement, but all those which cannot be triangulated in harmonic ratios must collapse under pressure. It is surprising that Buckminster Fuller was able to build a career without realizing the function of harmonics in maintaining basic stability of structure.
Whamond went further to point out that although stabilizing the dimensions of diagonals may be sufficient for practical structures, theoretical requirements are not satisfied unless the diametric vibratiom reinforce the perimetric vibrations to establish the polygon's rigidity through and through. The simplest polygon generated by a mutually harmonic reinforcement of both sides and center is the hexagon. This is the probable reason why six acquired a reputation for being the perfect number among the ancient philosophers, and why a circle's circumference was accepted as being three times its diameter. although every wheelwright knew better.
If you draw a grid of squares, and then draw all the diagonals, you will find yourself with a grid composed of two sets of squares. One set is rotated forty-five degrees from the other, and their dimension are related to each other by a ratio of the square root of 2. This self-evident transformation assumes engineering significance when harmonic structures extend into higher dimensions.
As Buckminster Fuller pointed out, not only is the triangle the basic unit of plane space, but the principle of triangulation also establishes the tetrahedron as the basic unit of solid space. Like the triangle, however, the tetrahedron maintains its structure only by the triangulated rigidity of the mutually reinforcing vibrations of its sides. In order to possess internal stability, the tetrahedron must be doubled, one intersecting another, with points aligned on a polar axis.
To establish stability, tetrahedrons must always be manifest in mutually opposed and supporting pairs in this way. When this geometrical structure takes form from universal vibrations, however, it is not the simple pair of tetrahedrons it appears to be at first sight.
If lines are drawn joining all the points of the paired tetrahedrons, you have a cube. If lines are drawn between the centers of each face of the cube, they form the edges of an octahedron.
If circles scribed around the bases of the two tetrahedrons are divided into five equal arcs and all the points joined by lines, a symmetrical polyhedron defined by twenty equilateral triangles is defined. If all the points are joined by lines through the center of the icosahedron, twenty equal tetrahedrons will be defined. The space defined by an icosahedron is stabilized by mutually reinforcing resonance around all sides, along all edges, and through all diameters. Like the hexagon, the twenty faceted icosahedron is the perfect solid.
Now, bisecting all the lines forming an icosahedron produces a twelve sided symmetrical polyhedron called a dodecahedron - the solid projection of the five-pointed star circumscribed by a pentagon. All ratios of the dodecahedron approximate the values of various mystical triangles, but they are incommensurate with the icosahedron by integers; the internal structure of the dodecahedron is irrational, like pi, phi, root 2, root 3, root 5, etc. As you know, the diagonal of a square is related to its sides by root 2 and the diagonal cross of a square is also the negative of the square. The dodecahedron is the negative of the icosahedron. In this context, the octahedron is the negative of the cube. Because a tetrahedron is the elemental unit of solid space, no other polyhedron can function as its inferior negative, so the tetrahedron is rotated 180 degrees to function as its own solid negative. Lines drawn from the points of a tetrahedron to its internal center form a linear structure called the Miraldi angle, resembling a caltrop, this is the true negative of the tetrahedron, but the field rotation required to transform a tetrahedron into a caltrop projects the structure into fewer dimensions.
Now, the relationship between a square and its diagonals is a 45-degree rotation on plane space, which is the projection of a rotation of 90 degrees in hyperspace. The relationship between the tetrahedron, the octahedron, the cube, the dodecahedron, and the icosahedron is also established by a definite rotation through hyperspace. The notes of a musical scale are also defined by a definite rotation of energy through hyperspace, which transforms one frequency into another. As an illustration, rotation through hyperspace transforms the wavelength of the side of a square to the wavelength of its diagonal. The ratio of the side to the diagonal is the same as the ratio between G and C on the musical scale.
Parity is not satisfied by the creation of nuclear particles in the form of equal and opposing standing-wave vortices. The axes of the pair, you see, are both aligned in the same direction; that is a manifestation of directional preference. In order that axes be balanced in all directions, particles must congregate in groups of six; three pairs of mutually opposed particles with the axis of each pair at right angles to the other two. This assemblage puts each vortex at the vertex of an octahedron.
The octahedron is not stable because each pair of vortices grind gears against the other two. But if the equatorial pair of particles move away from each other along the polar axis, the six can mesh together like two pairs of crown gear clusters fitted at right angles to each other.
The vortex model suggests that the basic particle is likely to be composed of three pairs of finer particles bound together in the harmonic structure of an octahedron. The geometry of the three pairs bears a striking correspondence to the characteristics of the elusive quark. Charm, beauty, and color appear to he manifestations of angle in hyperspace; axial angles account for fractional electric charge.
The octahedron still does not quite satisfy parity. The polar pinions of the crown gear clusters are both spinning in the same direction; this will give the octahedron a net charge. If four more pair of vortices, forming the negative of the octahedron, are spaced in a cube arrangement between the vertices of the octahedron, all the gears will spin in the right direction, all spins will be equally opposed, and all axes will be balanced in all directions. The cube-octa is the likely conformation of the neutron. Proof will be slow coming because at least half the particles are in the quantum field at the instant any measurement is made; this is why the quarks are so damned elusive.
The cube-octa contains fourteen particles. If struck, it could collapse, with twelve arranging themselves around one in the center, in the form of a dodecahedron, while the fourteenth spins free into orbit. The transformation is remarkable similar to what appears to happen when a neutron is converted by impact into a proton and an electron.
If the proton has the geometry of a dodecahedron, it will be a charged particle, so every proton will seek another proton as a mate. This may be why hydrogen is a diatomic molecule. After the neutron collapses, parity is not reestablished absolutely until the helium atom is formed. This would explain why helium is monatomic, with all the properties of an overgrown neutron.
Now that we have our electrons, protons, and neutrons straightened out, let's put them all together!
Niels Bohr described the atom as a miniature Solar System, with the nucleus serving as a Sun, orbited by electron `planets'. The Bohr model is represented in all popular scientific literature despite the fact that any child can see it must be impossible. You see, if you have electrons orbiting in all directions around a nucleus, they are bound to collide; and on the atomic time scale, eventually is something sooner than a microsecond.
The atomic traffic problem was solved by gaving each electron a different radius to orbit, but this solution won't work, either. An electron's wavelength is defined by its orbit. If every electron has its own orbital radius, each electron will manifest a different wavelength. This does not happen.
Erwin Schrdinger resolved the problem by proposing that electrons were standing waves, but his equations required three dimensions for each electron. Although the standing-wave equations were accepted, the necessity for multiplied space was not. As a consequence, mathematical physicists are still searching for a model that will make the atom possible! They have given up seeking a model that can be represented as a mechanical structure, and physics builds increasingdy complicated and abstract equations.
The model of solid harmonics indicates that the node of the electronic standing wave revolves around the equator of the hydrogen nucleus. The node requires only half the quantum orbital space it has, so another electron can share the same shell to form a helium atom. To maintain parity, each moves to a polar hemisphere separated by the equator, and revolves in opposite directions.
Space is insufficient for a third electron, so the lithium atom must start another shell. The second shell has enough area for eight electrons, so the surface of each hemisphere is divided harmonically into successive halves, thirds, and quarters. Apparently the equatorial division establishes a hemispherical sector that is never crossed. The eight facets form the sides of an octahedron (the ubiquitous octahedron again) and each facet has just enough room to hold an electron; each facet is a quantum unit of space relative to the frequency of the electron. When the octahedron is complete, the atom is electrically neu- tral, as all octahedrons with their gears running smoothly are supposed to he, Neon is almost as inert as helium, but parity must be observed; and a second octahedron is laid over the first with the spins of each electron aligned at a different angle. The fourth orbital shell has sufficient radius for its surface to hold many more electrons. If you move the eight electrons to the vertices of the octahedron harmonic structure, so that each hemisphere is covered by a square pyramid with the equatorial cleavage separating them, you will find enough room to add another electron to the center of each facet, defining a cube- octa. The total of electrons will he eighteen; this is the number of electrons proven to be established in the subsequent shells in the generation of the Periodical Table of Elements. The electrons of each shell align their axes to balance parity.
But apparently it is a long way from helium to the next perfect atomic geometry. If the equatorial cleft is retained throughout the generation of elements, the model of heavier atoms will assume the dumbbell configuration of the electromagnetic field surrounding a bar magnet. (Structural weakness at the waist may be the reason that atoms heavier than bismuth break spontanenusly.)
To illustrate how the geometry works in prarctice, the atom of carbon has a pair of miter caps, one over each polar hemisphere. There is space for two more electrons in each hemisphere to complete the octahedron. When it takes the electrons attached to hydrogen atoms, the hydrogen nucleus is going to stick out as a lump. In order to maintain parity, the angles at which the hydrogen atoms will join the carbon atom to form methane conform to the points of a tetrahedron. This fact is taken for granted in stereochemistry today, but established authorities put down the first chemist who suggested that molecules had solid structures, quite different from the empirical formulas used to describe them.
The oxygen atom is capped by three-sided pyramids with room for one more electron in each hemisphere. Parity allows a 120-degree angle between the hydrogen nuclei, and so water forms ice crystals in a hexagonal geometry.
Outside of the innermost shells, electrons do not orbit the nucleus of their atoms at all; they orbit the space of their octahedronal facet at a constant radius. This geometry makes it possible to avert collisions and maintain a constant frequency of orbit, regardless of an electron's distance from its atomic center. When atoms are excited by absorbing radiation, a rotation in hyperspace causes the shells to move out to a greater radius from the nucleus to the positions calculated from experiment.
You have been taken along this line of superficial physics and chemistry to give you a basis for the possibility that all molecular structures are generated from the elementary geometry of the Platonic solids, with the elements combined in various combinations of harmonically integrated angles, like crystals. If this is so, then each chemical element and compound will resonate in sympathy to a specific geometric solid. Furthermore, each solid structure can be excited and modulated by musical sound. This is not a novel concept, but the very basis of alchemy.
Now, each solid can be transformed into another structure by a regular rotation through the hyperspace of the quantum field. Each chemical atom is also transformed by a rotation of its geometrical structure in hyperspace. Therefore, by employing tuned vibrations it is theoretically possible to transform lead into gold (or gold into oil, which is considerably more valuable these days).
In the meantime, back at the bench, we have discovered the Philosophers' Stone. If a birdbrain can transmute the elements, so can engineering geniuses - as soon as we figure out how those stupid chickens did it.
[Source: T.B.Pawlicki - How to transmute the elements by engineering the geometry of standing waves]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
