ORGONOMY INFO IN NEWSGROUPS
(keywords = orgon, orgone, orgonomy, wr, cloudbusting)
(Deja news search
we thank you)
(Editor note: The messages and items found in this search include negative and positive statements towards orgonomy. Some negative statements demonstrate the one sided and mechanistic view by individuals. Some other statements are broadcasted one liners by those who have never investigated what they have chosen to judge negatively. These negative and unsubstantiated statements are part of what Wilhelm Reich would consider as "the emotional plague of mankind". Some however are just orgonomy information or exchange. We post what we find in the searches. We leave it up to the reader to form their own opinions concerning what we found on the news groups.)
"If one wishes to combat the plague one must expose oneself
to it."
Wilhelm Reich, People In Trouble, pg. 187
Most recent item is listed last. Long items occasionally edited to show only text related to - orgone.
Date: 4 Nov 1995 19:55:02 GMT
Re: Official Science Thread
Date: 4 Nov 1995 19:55:02 GMT
From: jed@vulcan.earth.nwu.edu
(John DeLaughter)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, US
Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca alt.pagan
References: 1
2
tallthin@irs.com (Tall Thin Jones) wrote:
> I don't have an easy way to set up three-way netmail, that I know
of.
I'll take that as a request that we continue on-list. (Raven, an alternative
would be to move this over to alt.pagan. I've been corresponding with Haezl
there for some time on this subject, and haven't received any "Get
off, you band-width idiot!" notices yet.)
<G>
And now to the discussion...
> Your case against Wilhelm Reich is mostly flawed. Even after
> admitting that Reich speculated, you seem to use his speculations
> against him as if he stated them to be THE truth. That's not nice,
and
> not good reporting.
Once again, you seem to misunderstand the meaning of "theory"
in science. Please read any of the references I've given you, or go ask
someone in a university science department exactly what a "theory"
is. In a nutshell, when a scientist publishes a theory, he is saying "This
is my prediction of how the world works". Reich made such a
prediction with his theories. The predictions were proven to be wrong.
Therefore, Reich's theories are wrong. It's as simple as that.
> You said that Wilhelm Reich's cosmology failed. However, when
you
> attempted to explain why it "failed", you failed to show
the "why" of
> what his theory allegedly excluded. You failed to show why there would
> be "density stratification" if WR's views were true. This
is not good
> science on your part, even as speculation.
Well, we're making some progress. At least now I know where you've gotten
confused. Let me try illustrating the process Reich said occurred
with some simple physical examples. If that fails, I'll dig out the math
and show you that way.
Reich said that:
"Spheres or discs of solid matter spin on a spiraling path within
a *faster moving*, wavy orgone energy ocean, *as balls roll forward
on a faster-moving, progressing water wave*." (Op cit.)
First, a physical demonstration that there must exist a gradient within
the "orgone energy ocean". Take a spinning record, and
place a few drops of water near the center of the record. The drops will
move in a
spiraling path to the edge of the record, and fly off. This happens because
the change in the velocity of the drop caused by the moving record is not
countered by friction. Now take a round bowl and spin it. Place some drops
of water in the center. You will see that the water drops will move up
the side of the bowl to a point where the
energy imparted by the spin is balanced by frictional and gravtitational
forces (provided, of course, that you don't spin the bowl *too* fast!).
Similarly, it can be shown that without some form of gradient in the hypothesized
orgone energy ocean, the planets would be flung out of the solar
system.
Given that there must be a gradient, the question arises of how that gradient
will interact with the various bodies of the solar system, and what causes
the gradient. If you return to the spinning bowl, you will find that marbles
of different densities will sort themselves out in the spinning system
by density. This is because it takes more energy per unit volume to change
the motion of a denser object than a less dense one. (NB - This is most
obvious if you use a *big* bowl.) This process is used as a method for
identifying constituents in a mass
spectrometer. From this we may see that in Reich's cosmology, the solar
system must be density stratified. It is not. Ergo, Reich was wrong,
and his cosmology fails.
< SNIP! >
> WR's imprisonment was in a great part due to misconduct on the part
> of the FDA and their investigating scientists. _Wilhelm Reich
vs. the
> USA_ described investigations that were done so poorly a bright sixth
> grader would be ashamed.
"In great part" does not mean that it was the only reason. As
noted previously, he was also using his machines as prophylactic devices.
Under existing law, that was unlawful - whether or not they worked. He
was also encouraging adolescents to engage in sex. That is "contributing
to the delinquency of a minor", and still is unlawful. He was hardly
the only person jailed for such activities.
> You keep mentioning the thing about h. pylori as if it proves
> conclusively that the FDA always treats people fairly.
I never said "always"; I merely said that it has happened.
> One case does not prove this. The many recorded cases of the FDA
> sending SWAT teams into people's businesses and homes prove something
> else.
In science, we've got a saying - "Put up or shut up". I've asked
you for the dates, places, people, etc., involved in these FDA SWAT raids.
Can you provide this evidence? Or are you hoping that, by repeating your
assertion often enough, we will assume that it is true?
< SNIP! To next post >
> John DeLaughter, you're trying to tell me that I should accept a
> proof that has a lot of steps missing.
If you cannot follow the steps of "Reich predicts a solar system
that looks like (A), and the solar system looks like (B); ergo Reich
is incorrect", perhaps you should re-read the proof. When demonstrating
that a theory is incorrect, one is *not* required to provide an alternative
theory. It's nice, but not absolutely required -
especially when the competing theory is well documented elsewhere. (That
was the idea of those references, BTW.)
> To paraphrase your own words, you have to start with the most
> complete description possible of the phenomenon you are talking about.
> How can you prove something to someone without conveying enough of
the
> message to be understood?
I'm sorry; I tend to assume that those I'm speaking with have as broad
a background in science as I. See above for the derivation of Reich's
predictions from his description of the OR energy ocean.
> Another fault is that you are providing a scenario that Reich
> didn't. So far what you have managed to do is provide me with
> excellent examples of faulty criticisms.
I gave you Reich's words, in which he explicitly described the cosmology
I've tested. If you disagree that his statement describes the cosmology
I've tested, then exactly what are your objections? Just saying that I'm
not testing his scenario is not sufficient, any more than holding one's
hands over one's ears and chanting "I'm not
listening" is.
> No, you didn't make it more "coherent." You started after
the
> proof of your assertion by assertion, instead of where you left the
> gaping hole in your theory. That does not make it more coherent.
What was the assertion? I gave you the order and densities of objects in
the solar system - this is checkable data, not an assertion. If you don't
like the data, then provide your own, along with the references
to back it up.
> About density stratification, you have to show how the predictions
> of density of the solar system are derived. I'm not going to fill
in
> the gaps for you, you wouldn't like the way I would do it anyway ;).
As
> little as you have explained so far, you could have just as credibly
> stated that gravitational theory would imply that planets could not
> have satellites. In fact, it did take careful mathematical analysis
to
> show that while the moon and Earth truly orbit the sun, and perturb
> each other's orbits, this can and does also give the appearance of
the
> Moon orbiting the Earth as if the Sun did not exist. So the Moon is
> and is not a true satellite of the Earth, depending on the viewpoint.
Actually, the Moon and Earth co-orbit their center of mass (COM), located
at the barycenter of the system. This was demonstrated by Newton. The EM
COM creates a COM with the Sun, and orbits that; this was demonstrated
by Lagrange. COM coordinates are the best way of understanding many types
of motion; that's why it's taught in freshman physics.
> Let me put it another way. It is a fact that the Sun has twice the
> gravitational influence on the moon that the Earth does, implying
that
> the Earth cannot have its own satellite. Yet there it is.
Ah - but orbits are created by *tidal* forces, not simple gravitational
forces. It's the gradient in the gravity that determines an orbit, not
the gravity itself. Imagine a universal gravity field of 10 g; since there
is no preferred direction, everything could move in any direction. It is
only because there is a change in gravity that motion
is warped into an orbit. Since the Earth exerts a tidal force on the Moon
180 times that of the Sun, the Moon truly can be said to orbit the Earth,
rather than the Sun. If you really wish to understand orbital motion, may
I suggest you read Smith and Owen's _Introduction to Astronomy_, as I have
urged you to do in the past?
< SNIP! Error based on incorrect derivation >
> It is hard to see how Reich could be wrong about the motions of the
> planets being like his "spinning waves" because I think
he drew the
> shape of the wave to correspond with the motions that were there.
In
> other words he made the theory to correspond with observed reality.
> The basic description of the simplest spinning wave is a small body
> orbiting a larger body, while the system moves.
But in order for the small body to orbit a larger body which is orbiting
a third body (the simple three body problem first solved by Lagrange in
1772), Reich's system would impose a secondary vortex orbiting a primary
vortex. It can be demonstrated mathematically that such a system is ultimately
unstable, and would lead to the ejection of the secondary. For a physical
analog of such a system, try watching a whirlpool in a stream sometime.
Smaller whirlpools may be formed on the edge of the main vortex, but they
inevitably either join it or spin
away from it. They do not form stable orbits within it.
> In Reich's theoretical system I gather that this kind of pair
of
> bodies is the primary method by which the orgone energy is
carried.
> Rather than preventing planets from having satellites, it would almost
> seem to necessitate it, if a property of orgone energy is that
it tends
> to shape its local system.
Can you justify this assertion? I have shown that this is not the case.
> Let me get back to you with some graphs of spinning waves. The sine
> wave is one of them, the simplest case. Is the QBasic that comes with
> MS-DOS available to you? I can send you source code in QBasic or
> (urg!) GWBasic that will only take a few lines.
I can use either, tho' I prefer C++ myself. (Hey, if I can convert from
FORTRAN to BASIC to C++, then anyone can!) <G> However, I've created
not a few unique waveforms of my own in the past. (Ever see a Lissajous
figure? Beautiful!) The important thing to remember is that simply because
a figure can be drawn does not mean that it has any physical reality; after
all, I've been known to sketch a few invisible pink armadillos in my past...
8-)
< SNIP! Agreement to stick to one issue at a time>
> I don't yet know what you have in mind. In practical terms I have
> already made good use of the orgone accumulator and have proven it
to
> myself. To create even the beginnings of a scientific proof even by
my
> low standards would take many experiments and many observations. You
> don't think that one experiment proves anything, do you?
One well-done, well-documented experiment can demonstrate that a theory
is wrong; witness Orville and Wilbur... ("Man will never fly")
> I will accept the experiment in the spirit that it is a way to get
> people started thinking. I wonder if anyone else here is going to
> participate.
Well, we've got three volunteers already; four if I count you. Is that
a quorum?
John DeLaughter
date: 95-11-06
Orgon,
Wissenschaftsmethodik.
From: detlef@joj
o.escape.de (Detlef Bosau)
Date: 1995/11/06
MessageID: 5xL3tNxYBhB@jojo.escape.de
organization: Jojo, Detlef's eigener Rechner newsgroups: de.sci.misc
Guten Tag.
Ich bin gerade entsetzt vom Fernsehprogramm N3.
Man berichtet ueber Orgon.
Zum einen bin ich als Informatiker entsetzt, wie hier wieder mal in aller Unschaerfe Begriffe wie "Information" und "Programmierung" gebraucht werden.
Zum andern wird hier ewig von "Energie" gesprochen. Niemand weiss, ob hier von esoterischen Dingen oder physikalischen Begriffen gesprochen wird.
Ein Professor in Barsinghausen redet davon, vor Jahrhunderten haette man elektromagnetische Felder nicht nachweisen koennen.
Aber jetzt die Hoehe:
In einer sogenannten Diplomarbeit wird die Wirksamkeit eines Orgonakkumulators bewiesen.
Hierzu wird ein einem Orgonakkumulator (ein Holzkasten, innen mit Aluminium ausgekleidet, die Wand mit Schichten aus Wolle und Stahlwolle gefuellt) eine Versuchsperson eine halbe Stunde lang hineingesetzt und die Koerpertemperatur gemessen.
Mit "99 % Wahrscheinlichkeit" sei nachgewiesen, dass diese um 0.43 Grad Celsius steigt.
Hier wird der Eindruck erweckt, hier sei ein Phaenomen nachgewiesen, dass einer Eklaerung beduerfe.
Anstelle nun eine Erklaerung zu suchen, bemueht man die Theorien eines Forschers namens Wilhelm Reich, dessen Forschungen in den USA verboten worden seien.
Leider. Scharlatane verbietet man nicht, man entlarvt sie. Hier wurde ein Maertyrer geschaffen.
So etwas ist absolut peinlich.
Aber hier hat man ja sogar ganz besonders sorgfaeltig gearbeitet:
Man hat den Versuch zweimal gemacht! Zwei unterschiedliche... ...12 jaehrige Kinder im gleichen Orgonakkumulator.
Der simple Versuch, hier das Vorhandensein eines Phaenomens zu pruefen, waere gewesen:
Man baue eine Anzahl Orgonakkumulatoren, einige _mit_ praeparierten Waenden, einige _ohne_. Natuerlich ununterscheidbar durch aeussere Betrachtung.
In diese setzt man dann Personen, denen man nicht sagt, ob ein Orgonakkumulator echt ist oder nicht.
Dann misst man bei diesen Personen, was passiert. Wenn man dann eine spezifische Wirkung in Orgonakkumulatoren nachweisen kann, koennen wir weiterreden.
Wenn nicht, sollten wir mal darueber nachdenken, ob evtl. durch die Enge des Kastens die Koerpertemperatur gestiegen ist oder nicht.
Aber hier wird schon vom Handwerk her ein Panoptikum der Unfaehigkeit in der Anwendung elementarer Analysemethoden aufgezeigt.
Und dann wird _erst_ nach der Erklaerung fuer ein Phaenomen gesucht, _dann_ nach dem Phaenomen. (Man erinnere sich: _Erst_ wurde beobachtet, dass eine Magnetnadel in der Naehe eines stromdurchflossenen Leiters abgelenkt wurde, und die Ablenkung nach Abschalten des Stromes verschwand, _dann_ wurde eine Erklaerung gesucht. Nicht umgekehrt.)
Natuerlich wirkt Orgon nun gegen Gewaesserverschmutzung, gegen Krebs, gegen Wundliegen.
Es war wohl eine Frage des guten Geschmacks, das Zeug nicht auch noch als Potenzmittel zu verkaufen.
Sogar Fachhochschulen haben sich angeblich mit dem Zeug befasst. Nun ja. Irgendwo muss man sich ja von der Uni unterscheiden..
... Um es zusammenzufassen:
Es geht mir hier nicht um die endgueltige Beurteilung der Orgontheorie, die ich nicht naeher kenne.
Es geht mir hier darum, dass von Wissenschaftlern, die auch noch von unserem Staat das Vorrecht der Bezahlung fuer wissenschaftliche Arbeit in Anspruch nehmen duerfen, nicht einmal begriffen wird, dass _erst_ ein Phaenomen nachgewiesen, _dann_ erklaert wird. Und dass offenbar die im Fernsehen vorgestellten Damen und Herren (natuerlich keine Kritiker...) offenbar keine Ahnung haben, wie man mit wissenschaftlichen Methoden, statistischen Verfahren etc. umgeht.
Da schmueckt man sich mit Dr. und Prof. Titeln, und beherrscht nicht mal die Grundzuege der Mathematik, wie sie in einer Zeit, wo jeder mit Statistiken und Analysen vollgemuellt wird, zum Abiturniveau gehoeren muesste. Ich bitte um Entschuldigung fuer diesen Wutausbruch. Aber ich bin wirklich enttaeuscht und bedrueckt, was man sich hier, gerade auf unserem "Kulturkanal" des Oeffentlich Rechtlichen Fernsehens leistet.
Weiss jemand naeheres? Weiss jemand, wo man sachlich fundiertes Material zu der Orgontheorie herbekommt?
(Konkret daher auch die Frage an Armadeo: Hat da vielleicht, mit Sicherheit sogar, mal jemand von der GUWP etwas drueber veroeffentlicht?)
Ich werde jetzt jedenfalls erst mal meine Wut ausschlafen ;-)
Gute Nacht. Detlef -- Detlef Bosau detlef@jojo.escape.de waehrend der
Woche: bosau.pad@sni.de (Bitte immer eine Kopie an mich in BS an den Jojo
schicken! Danke!) Bienroder Weg 79 Tel.: +49 531 303383 D2: +49 172 5208778
38106 Braunschweig, Germany Fax: +49 531 303383 >>>> PGP Public
Key als Empfangsbestaetigung <<<< ## CrossPoint v3.1 R ##
Re: Official Science Thread
From: haezl@aol.com (Haezl)
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.wicca alt.pagan
References: 1
In article: 47hvvf$k5e@shellx.best.com, javilk@shellx.best.com (Javilk)
writes:
> (Laughing,) I am not a real mad scientist, I only play one in my mind.
I'm never mad. Sometimes a little angry, though.
I get over it.
> What's supposed to be at the basis of this kind of energy? What
> objective instruments exist to detect it, or how is it inferred using
> objective instruments?
Orgone (Wilhelm Reich's term), or Chi in Chinese tradition,
or Vril, or Mana or many other names in many parts of the
world and throughout history is the basis of life. Primarily of
organic life, but perhaps by extension all "life". The Chinese
recognise many types of Chi, and I take it to mean there are
as many kinds of each of the above traditional names applied
to every kind of life. It becomes complicated, and I can steer
you toward a wealth of material on the subject.
But for now, let's keep it simple. I've posted discussion
mostly with John DeLaughter. You may want to read back, or I
will send it to you to catch you up if you ask. John has promised to
send us all an experiment to (I hope) verify for him the objective
nature of it. Actually, it will probably be one of Reich's experiments,
and
John has little hope for verification. Will this affect the results?
I posted my own little experiment, and I think
he should still be evaluating his results after some
modifications. Want to try it?
Some of this discussion has taken place on alt.religion.wicca
and I've looked at it, but my interest slides quickly away
from objectivity to empericism.
I am, in addition to being a witch (both a religion and an
avocation) a second-degree Reiki practitioner. Not
being apprpriate to our discussion of "good science" I
have not mentioned that. Nor my Tradition, nor my
academic credentials, etc. This thread began with a
discussion of the life-work of Marija Gimbutas being
summarily dismissed by current scholarship as not
being "good science". This brought up the discussion
of the work of many "good scientists" and their
dismissal.
That is why there are two threads,
and I still post under "good science". My idea of some humor.
Urge John DeLaughter to post his experiment and enlist
the aid of other experimenters when it comes.
Could be interesting. I wait in anticipation.
Bright Blessings,
Haezl
BTW Remember what newsgroup you're reading and try to keep
our talk appropriate to paganism as much as possible.
I feel that it is at base appropriate to discuss the source of
life in context with our religions. Science is a kind of paganism.
Re:
Official Science Thread
From: jed@juand.earth.nwu.edu
(John DeLaughter)
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston,
IL, US
Newsgroups: alt.pagan alt.religion.wicca
tallthin@irs.com (Tall Thin Jones) writes:
-= Quoting John DeLaughter to Tall Thin Jones =-
JD > Well, we're making some progress. At least now I know where
you've
JD > gotten confused. Let me try illustrating the process Reich said
JD > occurred with some simple physical examples. If that fails, I'll dig
JD > out the math and show you that way.
> It failed. Please dig out the math.
See below.
> You predicted highest density at the center, which is not necessarily
> true of a vortex.
Not of a vortex - of the things carried by the vortex. Reich claimed
that the planets were carried by the orgone energy ocean in a like
fashion and so the same principle applies.
> Actually, the only thing that brings heavier objects closer to the
> center at all is friction, without collisions there would be no reason
> for lighter and heavier masses to stratify at all.
No; friction is the only thing that keeps them from flying *out* of the
vortex. It is the interaction between the energy gained from the
vortex and the energy lost through frictional forces (not all of which
require collision, btw) that causes the stratification.
> Now, when a whirlpool in water loses its energy, water rushes in to
> fill it. When a vortex of matter in space loses angular momentum, the
> matter draws closer together, and the space rushes in but there is
> something there.
And, as the matter draws together, the density increases. See - you've
just demonstrated my point for me. By your own example, Reich fails.
> What you say about stratification holds true for the absolutely
> mainstream model of how solar systems form.
Where in the world did you get an idea like this? In the mainstream
model, gravitation is the driving force. The current density
distribution comes about through the conversion of gravitational
potential to heat. The things which fall the farthest (the inner
planets) heat up the most, and drive of the majority of their
volatiles. Only very large objects, such as the sun, have sufficient
gravity to keep their volatiles. The current model describes the solar
system very well, indeed. (Unlike Reich.)
> Was this your intent, to have me prove for myself that there is a
> "better" explanation from mainstream science? I think you've been
> BSing me for the last few weeks.
No, my intent was to engage in an honest and meaningful dialog. Was
this not reciprocated?
> To address your example of the Wright Brothers, that is the easy
> kind of proof. The mainstream contends that something cannot be
done,
> someone does it.
For mainstream, read "any scientist, including Reich". All that is
required for a theory to fail, no matter how well or poorly established
it is, is the incontravertible existence of a counter-example. If you
do not understand this, then you do not understand how science or logic
work.
[Minor snip]
> The difficult proof is of anything that other scientists can always
> find a plausible way to deny.
If by this, you mean that "scientists will deny anything that does not
fit in with their ideology", then I have demonstrated that this is a
false assertion.
[snip! Promise to check sources]
And now for the math. First, some notation conventions.
w = angular velocity
p = density
m = mass
T = Period of an orbit
V = velocity at a point r
Vi = velocity at a point (r - dr)
Vo = velocity at a point (r + dr)
Fc = centrifugal force
Fg = gravitational force
Fi = force pointing radially inward
Fo = force pointing radially outward
A^2 = "A squared"
A^3 = "A cubed"
=> implies that
< < Very much less than
We begin with the case in which the only forces on the system are due
to Reich's "OR energy ocean". In order for motion to be constrained,
we know that:
Fi/Fo < 1
Fi = m Vi^2 / (r-dr) (Centrifugal force)
Fo = m Vo^2 / (r+dr) (Centrifugal force)
=> Fi/Fo = (r+dr)Vi^2/{(r-dr)Vo^2}
Since (r+dr)/(r-dr) > 1, Vi/Vo << 1
=> Outer planets must move more quickly than inner planets. From
Turcotte and Schubert's _Geodynamics_, we find the following data:
Planet Orbital Radius Period Velocity = 2*pi*R/P
Mercury 57.9e6 km 87.97 days 47.86 km/sec
Venus 108.2e6 km 224.70 days 35.02 km/sec
Earth 149.6e6 km 365.25 days 29.78 km/sec
Jupiter 778.3e6 km 4,332.6 days 13.06 km/sec
From the data, it is obvious that Reich's system fails unless another
force is introduced. Which force could balance the system? The strong
and weak nuclear forces are not possible candidates due to their small
effective regions. Electromagnetism is a potential candidate, but
would require either a significant static charge or large magnetic
field. Either of these would be easily detectable; they have not been,
therefore we rule out this force as well. The only remaining force is
gravity.
We balance the Fc against Fg:
m r w^2 = G m^2 / r^2 (Self-gravitating body)
=> r^3 w^2 = G m
Remembering that, for a unit volume, m = p dv = p (since dv = 1 m^3)
=> r^3 w^2 = G p
Remembering that w = 2 pi / T, we find
p = 4 pi^2 r^3 / {G T^2}
which gives the density as a function of the orbital period and
radius. From the form of the equation, it is clear that density must
increase as the square of the orbital radius. We again check the
results predicted by Reich against reality:
Planet Orbital Radius Period Predicted Density Actual Density
Mercury 57.9e6 km 87.97 days 1.9879e30 kg/m^3 5.420e3 kg/m^3
Venus 108.2e6 km 224.70 days 1.9882e30 kg/m^3 5.250e3 kg/m^3
Earth 149.6e6 km 365.25 days 1.9888e30 kg/m^3 5.515e3 kg/m^3
Jupiter 778.3e6 km 4,332.6 days 1.9904e30 kg/m^3 1.314e3 kg/m^3
As you can clearly see, a density stratification in the solar system is
predicted by Reich - one that does not exist. Even worse, Reich
predicts densities which are 10^27 times greater than those observed in
the actual solar system. Reich fails again.
If we attempt to save Reich's theory by assuming that the planets of
the solar system were always in their present form, and that the
balancing force is provided by the gravity of the sun, we still run
into problems. In that case, the mass of the sun must vary for each
and every planet. We know that this is not the case; thus Reich
continues to fail.
In short, there is *no* form of Reich's cosmology which is both
consistent and supported by observation. Thus, Reich's cosmology
fails. Since Reich *required* that the solar system be supported by an
"OR energy ocean" in order to explain the failure of his control
experiments (as detailed in _The Discovery of the Orgone_), *all* of
Reich's theories about orgone and OR fail. It's that simple.
John DeLaughter
Date: 14 Nov 1995 21:28:24 GMT
Subject: Experiments in Unconventional Physics Requested
From: kbreslau@Direct.CA (Klaus Breslauer)
Organization: Internet Direct Inc.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Was looking for information on experiments in unconventional physics,
'Orgone Energy' (the work of Wilhelm Reich), 'Scalar Field
Potential (Telsa, Bearden..) and in improbable coincidence.
Not really interested in theories or opinions, but in experimental design,
with appartus, methodology and results. It seems to me that the quackery
of theory without suggestions of experimental predictions that can confirm,
deny or demolish theories is a poor use of the human mind and of the scientific
method.
If anyone has information about, or suggestions of quantitative experiments
or would like to participate as experimenters, on experiments that can
be perfomed on a reasonable budget of scientific inquiry please post.
Hear are some sample experiments, please comment freely on ways to do them,
or other experiments that will confirm, deny or demolish the theory on
which they are based.
1) Growing sets of seedlings under the double-blind condition that some
that may be on top of an orgon accumulator, but that the tender
of the plants does not know which one may or may not be under the influence
of the accumulator(a layered, organic, inorganic pillow of steel wool and
cotton).
2) If any experiments have been performed on whether a 'Cloud-buster
or any imposed condition or appartus can accelerate the radio-acitve decay
rate of a known isotope. Observing the beta and alpha decay of a pitchblend
sample under the double-blind influence of a 'cloud-buster, which is a
set of metallic tubes connected conductively to running water (unsure if
being part of an ecosystem matters).
3) I have a recollection of a story of an experiment, where people where
placed at a computer keyboard and asked to press a key whenver they felt
like it, and the computer would generate a pseudo-random number using the
time, key pressed as variables to determine the random number seed. One
group was asked to conciously wish for even numbers, another odd numbers
and the third given no explicit instruction. The results from dozens of
were supposedly a very slight shifting of the even/odd distribution in
the direction of the desired, but that is was 'statistically significant
at a very high confidence level because many subjects pressed the keys
so many times....
Is this merely a psychic myth, or can anyone point to a researcher who
did this experiment, or source of the story.
To reproduce it, I suggest an MS Windows/Visual Basic program, given over
the Internet that flashes the desired result on a screen and then generates
the result on the next key-stroke, recording the variables used to determine
the seed number & desired result, encoding it for storage, transmission
and collecting a large group of users ~ 1500 who spent at least an hour
each playing with probability.
4) Determine the speed of travel of a 'scalar wave created by a caduceus
coil, and recieved byan aligned caduceus coil by measuring the time delay
on a high performance oscilloscope with equal lengths leads between the
signal at the beginning of the transmitter coil and the end of the recieving
coil. If persons would like to participate in experiments, or once interesting
results that can be duplicated are then interested in developing or shooting
down theories, please e-mail to kbreslau@direct.ca
Sincerely, Klaus Breslauer
Re: Orgon
From: algol@magitech.com (Karl Welz)
Date: 1995/11/24
MessageID: 4946a5$u1m@news1.is.net#1/1
references: <MSGID_93=3A9200=2F2_30992712@fidonet.org>
<MSGID_2=3A2476=2F516.1_30b385c3@fidonet.org>
content-type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
organization: Magitech University
newsgroups: fido.ger.magie
In article <MSGID_2=3A2476=2F516.1_30b385c3@fidonet.org>, Christian_Sy@p1.vrc.schiele-ct.de says... > >Hi Tom! > >> Ich suche Literatur/Files/Infos zu Orgon (W.Reich). > > From : Ralf Jona 2:241/1010 07 May 94 17:54:00 > To : All > Subj : Lektuere zum Thema Orgon > >Hier mal was aus der Datenbank mit Stichpunkt "Orgon" und "W.Reich"... > >Original Mail vom 16. 7. '93 von mir an Alle: > <booklist deleted> Versuchen sie mal das Wilhelm Reich Museum in Rangeley, Maine: http://www.mainelink.net/~jogg/wrmcat.html (((No its just moved to http://www.mainelink.net/~pore/wrmcat.html ))) Sie finden dort eine komplette Liste seiner Buecher und anderen Schriften, alle erhaeltlich in Fotokopie. (no just moved to "http://www.mainelink.net/~pore/wrmcat.html" Ausserdem: http://www.magitech.com/ Beschreibung von Orgongeneratoren (nicht Akkumulatoren) und deren Verwendung in magischen Arbeiten. Ein sehr kleiner Orgonegenerator (10 x 6 x 4 cm) kann dieselbe Energie erzeugen, die ein grosser Reich-Akkumulator zum Hineinsitzen ansammelt. Ausserdem kann Orgon auf jedwede Entfernung ohne nennenswerten Energieverlust uebertragen werden, was Reich noch nicht wusste. Entfernung resultiert von struktureller Differenz (fuer Orgonenergie), was wir experimentell schoen bestaetigt haben! Als ich letztesmal in Europa war, hatte ich lediglich eine kleine Transferscheibe mit mir, die 3 cm Durchmesser hatte.Ich lade Sie zu einem Uebertragungsexperiment ein -- senden Sie mir e-mail, falls sie Interesse haben! Greetings from Atlanta karl
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Karl Hans Welz -- Inventor of the orgone- (life-energy-) generator
HSCTI -- Hyper Space Communications and Technologies International
Mind-Machines for Self-Achievement and Mind Control Technologies
"Magic is technology involving the use of structural links and
life energy" (from: Magic of the Future)
e-mail: Algol@magitech.com
http://www.magitech.com/
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Send information or questions to us orgone@geocities.com.
Comments or suggestions on the page are also greatly appreciated.
Disclaimers, Copyright, and Trademark
Other Great Orgonomy Web Sites
| AORL | DOS | IOO | ORI | PORE | WRM 
|
Many thanks for Geocities providing this free space
Get
your own Free Home Page
