Double slit experiment- Electrons

To explain the interference pattern produced by photons, we have proposed the existence ‘photon Ether’ which is nothing but a sea of photons pervading this entire universe. But how do we explain the interference pattern produced by electrons? Do we need to propose now the existence of what may be called as ‘electron Ether’ in addition to the ‘photon Ether’ or ‘lumiferous Ether’ described above? Absolutely not. In fact, not only electrons but many other particles were observed to behave like waves in the double slit experiment and we can explain all of them by the same Ether model.

To understand how electrons and other particles produce the wave like interference pattern in double slit experiment, first we will have to understand the fundamental mechanism by which sensors recognise things and we need to learn about objects and waves from the perspective of the sensors.

1) Objects as energy patterns: We sense our surroundings and know about the existence of various things in this universe via our sense organs. And our sense organs sense things based upon the patterns of energy stimuli they receive from the environment. So it is only based upon the patterns of energy we receive from the environment that we are aware of the existence of various things in this universe. And apart from that specific patterns of energy stimuli, we really don’t have any clues or information about the objects which we presume as truly existing. In other words, as far as we know, objects are nothing but energy patterns. And that is not only the case with human sensors but is true with any sensor. A sensor obviously relies upon the patterns of signals (in other words patterns of energy stimuli) that it receives from the surroundings to sense any object whether it is an electron or a ball.

2) Waves as holograms: A wave is nothing but a true copy of the energy pattern of the object that generated it (vide infra). So, from the perspective of a sensor which judges things only by the energy patterns it receives, a wave and its object (source) are one and the same. And we will also learn soon that a wave is not just a true copy but is a holographic image of its source.

Objects as sensations and energy patterns

We will start this by answering one simple but most fundamental question i.e. how do we actually see and recognise different things in our environment? We know that we see different objects because our eyes (or to be more specific our retina, the photosensitive layer inside our eyes) receive light energy from each of them in different patterns. Ant what is light energy? It is nothing but photons. So it is ultimately photons which collide with and stimulate our retina and cause the various visual sensations that we experience. But if it is the same photon particles that hit our retina, how are we able to see different things? It is obviously by sensing the ‘patterns of hits’ that our sensors (retinas) receive that we (our brains) are able to recognise or see the different objects in our universe.

Similarly we hear different sounds because our ear drums receive different patterns of collisions from the same air particles. It is again recognition of patterns of collisions that help us recognise the different sounds that we hear in our everyday life. And we recognise different objects by touch and again that is because our skin receives specific patterns of impacts or collisions from the same particles that make up the various objects in this world. So it is ultimately recognition of different patterns of the same fundamental stimulus which makes us see/ hear/ feel the different objects in this universe.

We know that every object in this universe is nothing but a conglomeration of the same fundamental particles. So what basically happens when two objects collide or come in contact with each other? The fundamental particles of one object will collide with those of the other. Similarly when a sensor comes in contact with an object, the fundamental particles of the sensor (e.g. our hand) collide with those of the object (e.g. a ball). As all objects are made of the same fundamental particles, how does any sensor differentiate between different objects? Obviously it is only by recognising the patterns of collisions that it receives from each of them.

Going even deeper, what underlies every collision event? Or what basically happens when two particles collide? It is just energy exchange between the particles. And what is energy at the most fundamental level? As far as we know it is impact from a photon particle. So it is ultimately photon particles colliding in specific patterns, which gives us the perception of different things in this universe. That applies to particle detectors as well. A particle detector senses something as an electron because it receives a unique pattern of energy from that particle. Obviously a sensor or a detector doesn’t ‘see’ which particle is actually hitting it, what it feels is just the impact. And only based upon the intensity, pattern, duration, direction etc of the impacts, a sensor ‘identifies’ different particles and judges (‘sees’) its surroundings.

Similarly, as already described, we the human sensors feel different objects (e.g. a book or a toy or a particle) in our environment only by the specific patterns of energy we receive from the environment. For example, we may believe that there exists a book in our room because we may have ‘seen’ that with our eyes, or ‘heard’ the sound of the pages turning or may have ‘felt’ it with our hands. But all these signals are nothing but energy patterns we receive from the environment and which our brain interprets as a book. So from our perspective, things in this universe are nothing but energy patterns. So in theory we must be able to describe every object and phenomenon in terms of collisions of photon particles or vibrations of Ether medium.

To conclude, every object we feel is nothing but a sensation and every sensation comes from a specific pattern of energy i.e. specific pattern of collisions from the particles that make up Ether. (May be also that we experience time and space because of the sensations that our brains get from the environment and hence may also be ultimately explained in terms of specific patterns of energy input. But let’s not dive into such deeper issues now.)

A wave as a hologram

We have seen above that objects are nothing but energy patterns. We will now learn that waves are also energy patterns and so from a sensor’s point of view, both waves and objects are one and the same. But there is one important difference between them i.e. while objects behave like ordinary photographs, waves behave like holographs. For those who aren’t familiar, a holograph may be described as a special photograph. The speciality about the photograph is that every part of it will have the data or information about the entire photograph. For example if we take a holographic image of a tree and cut into a number of pieces, each piece will show a miniature image of the whole tree unlike the case with our usual photographs. How is this possible?

When an ordinary picture is cut into pieces, we know that each piece will show only a part of the original picture

When an ordinary picture is cut into pieces, we know that each piece will show only a part of the original picture

When a holographic image is cut into pieces, each piece will show a miniatured version of the entire image.

When a holographic image is cut into pieces, each piece will show a miniature version of the entire image.

Holographic pictures are prepared by making use of the interference property of light waves which means that holography is one of the phenomena of wave motion. So let’s dig into the ‘micro-physiology’ of waves and understand the fundamental basis of holograms in clear terms.

A brief recap on the basics of wave mechanics before we attempt to understand the phenomenon of holography:– In our traditional teaching, a wave is represented as a series of peaks and troughs but this is not correct because this actually represents the cross section of a number of waves and not just one wave. A better understanding of waves can be gained by observing the tides in a sea or ripples in a water tank. Imagine that we have stroked the water surface with a paddle and produced a number of ripples in a large tank of still water. Each ripple in the tank represents a wave. Each wave has nothing to do with the one in front or the one behind. They just happened to be in series simply because the paddle stroked the water surface repeatedly. The attributes of each wave e.g. amplitude, wave length etc depend upon how the paddle strikes the water surface each time and, as just been mentioned, each wave has nothing to do with the one in front or the one behind. Same is the case with sound waves. Each oscillation of a tuning fork produces a wave of compression which travels in the medium independent of the waves produced before or afterwards. So, describing the wave length of a wave as the distance between two consecutive peaks or compressions makes no sense though it often ‘works’. And so is defining the frequency of a wave. Frequency actually applies to the source but not to the wave as such. An individual wave can’t have frequency. Instead of frequency, a better attribute for a wave would be ‘impact time’ or ‘contact time’.

The next important thing to recollect is that though we describe two types of waves traditionally i.e. transverse and longitudinal, in reality all waves are longitudinal waves and there is nothing called a transverse wave. And unlike what we have been taught in physics classes, the particles in a medium always vibrate parallel to the direction of propagation of the wave and never in the ‘transverse’ direction , though they ‘vibrate’ in a spiral fashion near the surface of the medium for reasons explained elsewhere.

By moving a paddle to and fro deep inside a pond, we actually produce longitudinal waves under the water surface. The same thing happens when a tuning fork vibrates under water. As these waves get conducted to water surface, they appear as transverse waves. So what we observe as transverse waves is only a surface manifestation of the underlying longitudinal waves.

trans & longi waves trans & longi waves2

So the ripples or the so called water waves that we observe on the surface of a pond or a sea do not actually represent a complete wave. A wave is better described as a propagating 3 dimensional phenomenon in a medium. A spherical point source produces a wave that looks something like a convex mirror at the beginning. As the wave propagates/ expands, it elongates more along its axis and becomes more like a conical mirror. And on the receding side, the mirror tries to close on itself.

Though ripples (‘transverse waves’) in a water tank don’t actually represent the waves proper, as long as we keep in mind the above discussion, we can use them to understand wave mechanics and to explain the various phenomena associated with wave motion. With this back ground, we will now move on to the holography.

When we throw an object into a tank of still water, we see it generate a water wave or ripple in the tank. But what actually happens at a more fundamental level is that the particles on the surface of the object collide with those of the water. And each particle on the object acting as a point source generates a wave front of its own. All these individual wave fronts interfere with each other and produce the water wave that we observe. So the ‘water wave as a whole’ represents the sum total of all the individual wave fronts generated by all the point sources on the object. Because each wave front represents the energy of the point source which created it, the energy pattern of all the wave fronts put together (i.e. the water wave) represents the energy pattern of all the point sources put together (i.e. the object as a whole). In other words the ‘water wave as a whole’ represents energy pattern of the ‘object as a whole’. We have discussed above that sensors detect objects only by the energy patterns they receive. So from the perspective of a sensor, both, the object and the wave, are one and the same and without additional clues, it can’t differentiate between the two.

Point no.1: A wave carries the same energy pattern as that of its source. In other words a wave is a true copy its source.

But how do we explain the holography phenomenon? i.e. how every small segment of the wave can possess the energy pattern of the entire source? To understand this, imagine an object as shown below and which is made up of just 3 point particles. When we throw this ‘3-particle’ object onto a sensor, the sensor receives 3 distinct hits and thus recognises the impact as a ‘3-point’ object. Now imagine that we threw this 3-particle body into a pond of still water and placed sensors at multiple locations in the pond. Obviously the 3-particle body generates a water wave which spreads throughout the pond and as it spreads, different portions of the wave hit different sensors. Thus each sensor receives impact from only a small segment of the entire wave. How would the sensor interpret this impact? If the wave is a holographic copy of the 3-particle object, then every small segment of the wave should contain a miniatured copy of the energy pattern of the 3-particle object. So each sensor should feel that it is being hit directly by a 3-particle body though in ‘reality’ it is being hit only by a small portion of the wave generated by that 3-particle body.

Let’s analyse the pattern of impact that each sensor receives in the above scenario.

When we throw the 3-particle object into the pond, what we observe at a ‘macroscopic’ level is that the object generates a water wave which spreads throughout and hits all the sensors as one single wave. But what actually happens at a microscopic level is that each particle of the object strikes the water surface and generates a wave front of its own. So there are going to be 3 wave fronts. These three wave fronts ‘cross’ each other (i.e. interfere with each other) and form specific patterns as they grow bigger and bigger. And though these wave fronts appear to travel as one single unit or one single wave ‘macroscopically’, if we look closely, they remain as separate entities within the wave. For analogy, one may imagine a bundle of curved fibres ‘arranged’ in a regular pattern, while each fibre in the bundle represents a wave front, the bundle as a whole represents the wave. Thus each wave front, despite being part of the wave bundle (or wave as a whole), is actually on its own, and spreads and hits each sensor independently. Thus every sensor receives 3 distinct hits (one from each wave front) at three different points, and this is exactly how our first sensor felt when hit directly by the 3-particle object. So the pattern of the signal received by a sensor will remain the same whether it is hit by an object or by a wave generated by that object.

Point no.2: Every small portion of the wave contains the energy pattern of the entire source. In other words, a wave behaves like a holographic image of its source.

Each particle acts as a point source and produces a wave front that goes and hits each sensor separately. Thus all the sensors receive 3 distinct hits and feel the impact of the 3 point object.

Each particle acts as a point source and produces a wave front that goes and hits each sensor separately. Thus all the sensors receive 3 distinct hits and feel the impact of the 3 point object.

Of course there are going to be some ‘minor’ differences in the energy patterns received by each sensor. For example, while sensor ‘A’ receives the impacts in the order x, y, and z; sensor ‘B’ feels the same impacts in the reverse order. And sensor ‘C’ receives the impact ‘y’ first and then receives the impacts x and z at the same time. Despite these differences, all sensors feel the 3-point energy pattern. In fact, it is these variations that help the sensors ‘know’ the direction of the energy source.

Whether a sensor interprets some impact as a tiny particle or a large ball depends upon the pattern of the impact it receives from the wave

Whether a sensor interprets some impact as a tiny particle or a large ball depends upon the pattern of the impact it receives from the wave

Of course in reality it is not as simple as that depicted above even for a 3 particle source. Just like how every particle on the leading surface of an object acts as a point source and generates a wave front, every particle on every wave front also acts as a point source and generates a wave front.  So each of the primary wave fronts will generate a huge number of secondary wave fronts and each of the secondary wave fronts will generate a huge number of tertiary wave fronts and so on. Thus, even though our 3 particle object generates only 3 wave fronts to start with, there are going to be ‘infinite’ number of wave fronts in no time. But despite that, the sensors still recognise the original ‘3-point energy pattern’ of our object. The reason is that these secondary and tertiary wave fronts will only cause ‘overtones’ in the three primary wave fronts and so do not alter the source’s primary energy pattern altogether.

While every particle on an object will act as a point source and produce a primary wave front, every particle on each of the primary wave fronts can also acts as a point source and generate a wave front. Thus every primary wave front will lead to a number of secondary wave fronts and every secondary wave front will lead to a number of tertiary wave fronts and so on. But the primary energy pattern will never disappear completely though it gets attenuated as the wave propagates.

While every particle on an object will act as a point source and produce a primary wave front, every particle on each of the primary wave fronts can also acts as a point source and generate a wave front. Thus every primary wave front will lead to a number of secondary wave fronts and every secondary wave front will lead to a number of tertiary wave fronts and so on. But the primary energy pattern will never disappear completely though it gets attenuated as the wave propagates.

So the primary energy pattern of the source never completely disappears, though it gets attenuated as the wave propagates in the medium. And because of this attenuation, a far away located sensor may fail to sense the source’s energy pattern. Obviously sensors can vary in their ‘sensitivity’ or ability to pick up the energy pattern of the source – A highly sensitive detector may sense a source’s energy pattern even after the wave has travelled for miles while a less sensitive detector may fail to do so even when directly hit by the source. (We can discuss a lot more on how sensors sense various aspects like direction of impact, strength of impact, depth and relation between different objects, the phenomenon of motion etc. But we will restrain ourselves to what is relevant to our present task i.e. explain the double slit experiment).

So far we have talked about water waves and explained how a water wave behaves like a holographic image of its source. But in reality water is not the best medium for transfer of images or energy patterns, the reason being that water is much more ‘granular’ compared with the most fundamental energy medium i.e. Ether. So images transferred by water are coarser (due to ‘large pixels’- it is like making a casting of a man using sticky foot-balls rather than fine gravel or mud). Even worse is air medium because energy images transferred by air (eg. sound waves) are not only coarser but will have poor resolution due to less number of pixels (i.e. air particles) per unit area.

As Ether is the most fundamental medium, energy patterns (or ‘energy castings’) of objects get transmitted much better in Ether medium than in any other medium. And for the same reason holographic phenomenon is better experienced with light waves rather than with water waves or air waves. In fact, it is because of the ‘holographic behaviour’ of light waves that all of us are able to see the various things in our world. Let me explain how.

As discussed before, we are able to see and recognise different objects because our sensors (retina) receive specific patterns of energy from each of them. And conversely, for objects to be seen or to be sensed, they must release energy i.e. they must emit photons in specific patterns. (Foot note: If an object doesn’t release any energy at all, we really can’t see that or it may be ‘seen’ as a ‘black spot’ in the background). Every object releases energy by two mechanisms i.e. reflection and radiation. When a beam of light is shone upon a body, part of that gets absorbed and part of that gets reflected by the body. And it is because of this reflected light that we are able to see most objects in our everyday life. Even in the absence of external light beam, energy (i.e. light photons) does get emitted from every object (radiant energy), but in most cases this radiant energy is not strong enough to be sensed by human retina. (Those objects which emit strong enough radiation to be seen by human eyes are considered as self-luminescent but in reality self-luminescence is a relative phenomenon). Whether it is by radiation or reflection, each photon that gets emitted from every point of an object initiates a wave front in the Ether medium. Thus from every object, numerous wave fronts get generated at any instant and because each wave front represents the energy of a point source on the body, all the wave fronts together represent the energy of all the point sources on the body, in other words the energy of the body as a whole. So, just like how the water wave carried the energy pattern of its source; the light wave or pulse which represents the sum of all the wave fronts from an object carries the energy pattern of its source. We have discussed previously that a sensor judges its surroundings only from the patterns of energy it receives from the surroundings. Because a light impulse from an object carries the same energy pattern as that of the object, a sensor would feel the same impact whether it is hit by the light impulse or the object.

As mentioned earlier our visual world is merely a manifestation of the holographic phenomenon. For example, imagine that a ball is lying on a table in front of a group of students (we may also join them for better experience) and imagine that 3 red dots are marked on the ball as shown in the picture.

ball 3 dots

Obviously each student in the group will be able to see the 3 dot pattern on the ball and that is because the retina (the sensor) of each eye receives three distinct hits. And we can explain this by the same holographic mechanism discussed above. We know that each dot emits energy in the form of photons and each photon (or shower of photons) that gets emitted generates a wave front in the Ether medium which pervades this entire Universe. Each wave front then spreads (or gets scattered) in all directions and hits all the sensors (retinas). Thus each retina gets three separate hits and recognises the 3 dot pattern on the ball. Of course not only our retinas but every inch of our skin also receives the same 3 dot energy pattern. And interestingly this is the same energy pattern that our skin receives when hit by a 3-point object. So logically speaking, we must all feel being bombarded by 3-point objects whenever we stand in the vicinity of a 3-dot object. But why isn’t that we experience this odd phenomenon? The reason is that our skin is not sensitive enough to pick up these subtle light energy patterns unlike our retina.

So our brain recognises the 3-dot pattern on the ball because our retina receives 3 distinct impacts from the 3 dots on the ball. But how does our brain recognise the ball as a whole? Obviously that must be because our retina receives distinct hits from all the points on the ball. Thus all of us receive specific patterns of impacts from all the objects around us. But, only our eyes are sensitive enough to sense these patterns while our skin is not. Only when ‘objects’ are in ‘direct contact’, that our skin will receive strong enough energy inputs and will be able to sense the energy patterns of the objects. Even if our skin is sensitive enough to feel the impact of the light waves from an object, this ‘indirect impact’ from the object will be millions of times weaker than the direct impact received from the object, so our skin will only feel some ill defined heat sensation and not the object as such.

In summary, we can describe a wave as a propagating holographic image of its source (or the source’s energy pattern, to be more accurate). And just like how every small portion of a holographic picture contains a miniatured image of the original picture, each portion of the wave also contains the energy pattern of the source and behaves like a miniatured copy of the source.

Now coming to the double slit experiment- Imagine that we throw a tiny stone into a large tank of still water. As the stone impinges upon the water surface, it transmits its energy pattern to the water molecules and generates a wave in the water tank. From the discussion above, we can consider the water wave as a growing holographic image of the stone’s energy pattern. Sensors placed at different locations in the tank will be able feel the impact of the stone as the ‘stone wave’ goes and hits the sensors. We have noted above that sensors recognise things only by the pattern of impacts they receive from the environment. Each of the sensors receives the same kind of impact and hence interprets the signal as if they were hit by the stone itself. (The only difference is in the intensity – sensors that are situated far away receive a weaker impact than the ones ahead of them. And, depending upon their relative position, some sensors receive ‘head on’ impacts while others receive ‘side’ impacts). Of course it is ‘actually’ a group of water molecules which impinge upon the sensors and not the stone itself but still the sensors may identify the impact as that of a stone. As long as the sensor receives the same pattern of impact, the sensor doesn’t know whether it is hit by a stone or by a mass of water molecules.

Similarly when an electron is fired, it initiates a wave in the Ether medium and its energy pattern dissipates throughout the space. Detectors placed at different locations in space sense the wave as if they were hit by a ‘real’ electron and register the impact as that from an electron. So it is the energy pattern of the electron which travels in space in all directions simultaneously but not the electron itself.

Go to Next Page

Go to Previous Page

Go to Main Index

 

Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

Comments

  • Harold Johnson  On November 13, 2014 at 3:17 am

    I spent the summer doing research at CERN and left thinking similarly to what I’ve just read so far. (pg 1 of double slit)

    Like

  • Galacar  On November 13, 2014 at 12:44 pm

    Hi Harold

    I love to know more about this!
    I do know CERN is also used for very sinister practices, but my guess is
    you have never heard or seen anything about this.
    But it will come out in the open in the coming years.

    Like

    • Galacar  On June 20, 2016 at 2:54 pm

      Well, well, well

      See my above posting, posted at 2014!

      Here comes some!

      CERN UNLEASHED! Gotthard Tunnel Ritual Reveals The PORTAL To The Underworld

      And

      Bizarre Opening Ceremony: PART 2 First 15 Minutes UNEDITED

      Now, Do you still believe the official ” story’ of what CERN is all about?!

      I know I don’t !!

      My two cents

      Galacar

      Like

  • Rick  On March 25, 2015 at 7:55 am

    I think of it not as the Ether, but as the actual three expanded dimensions, or the ‘fabric’ thereof, to take a string theory view From a string theory perspective, I think of the particle as existing as a vibrating string (or membrane) within the curled up dimensions only, which interacts with the three expanded dimentions resulting in a wave pattern. To me, the three expanded dimensions are quantized, and new points are constantly being introduced between ‘existing’ quanta of the three expanded dimensions, such that any two points of these quanta would.be forced away from each other at the speed of light. Particles, massive or massless exist merely within the curled up dimensions, and interact with the three expanded dimensions, our world or perception, as waves. When we detect a particle, essentially by bouncing something off of it, we are probing the curled up dimensions which are not expanding and thus not experiencing time. The particle’s motion through space, our expanding dimensions, is represented by a wave in the three dimensuo al fabric only. Our three dimensions, by their expansion give us the concept of time and hence motion. I cannot go on. I need to put this down in a more coherent fashion. If any of this makes sense to you, feel free to reply.

    Like

  • Harold Johnson  On April 3, 2015 at 5:37 am

    Rick, I would like you to expand a little more if you don’t mind. The particle exists in the curled up dimensions as a particle and our three dimensions as a string?

    Like

  • J Jagannath  On May 5, 2015 at 12:37 pm

    DrG. the slit edges need to be treated realistically. At an atomic level (or molecular level) the slit edges are highly porous and when light enter the slits, it will go these holes, as it were, and we see a pattern on the screen which is nothing but an interference pattern. The same goes for electrons too. The size of an electron is way too small compared to the size of an atom and I think it is natural that we see these patterns. My work treats the slit edges as highly porous and the slits get dense as the thickness of the slit edge increases and therefore the porosity decreases giving the material its opacity. How does your work treat the slit edges? It appears you’re treating them as perfectly opaque, yes?

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On May 12, 2015 at 6:10 pm

      Jagannath, while I found many of your ideas highly enlightening and refreshing, I was rather baffled by the explanation you have provided for the double slit experiment. One may believe that most of the space inside the atoms and molecules is empty and so the edges of the slits may be considered as highly porous. But how does that account for the alternate dark and light bands that we observe on the detector screen? According to me, the porous edges of the slits should only cause some blurring of the band pattern but that doesn’t per se explain the interference pattern observed in the double slit experiment.

      I think, the results of double slit experiment are best explained by the Ether model. And according to me, the empty space inside the atoms is not really empty but is permeated by Ether. And that ether is not still but is being stirred by the particles inside the atoms. So unless a particle is fired with sufficient force, it will not be able to penetrate that ‘empty’ space. I Think, ‘transparency’ is a property that has nothing to do with empty space inside the atoms because there isn’t anything called empty space in real sense.

      Imagine firing some air particles so that they hit a screen at some distance. Now imagine that there exists an air curtain or a whirlpool between the particle gun and the screen. Obviously, now the fired particles get blocked by the air curtain from reaching the screen. Or only those particles that get fired with enough force manage to pass through the air curtain and emerge on the other side and hit the screen. That is, the air curtain is ‘transparent’ to only the high energy particles unlike the still air which allowed most particles.

      Similarly, the ability of light photons or waves to pass though the empty space of the atoms depends upon the state of the Ether fluid which fills that ‘empty space’ i.e. whether the ether fluid is at rest or whether it is being stirred, the direction/ pattern of stir etc. So the empty space inside atoms is neither empty nor passive to allow unrestricted/ free passage of all the photons or electrons.

      But how do light waves pass through some materials like glass freely? I think what is more important than the sparse distribution of the subatomic particles (or the porosity) is the patterns of ether currents (produced by those particles) inside the atoms. It is possible that the patterns of ether currents inside the atoms/ molecules of the glass material facilitate light waves to propagate freely. I think we should be able to work out a physical model along these lines to explain the transparency or opaqueness of materials.

      Like

  • J Jagannath  On May 13, 2015 at 9:40 am

    DrG, many thanks for your reply. The porosity is not just one layer, right? It must be several layers of it, and therefore, this is the same scenario as thin film interference, which I have explained using the mesh-analogy in my work. If you agree with my explanation of the thin film interference, then you must also agree with it when it happens at the edge of a slit, which at a molecular level is actually a thin film in some sense. Recall, that in the book, I use the same reasoning to explain Colour, via Goethe’s Theory.

    I still have not understood your model of Interference. Is there a simple animation of your model that is easy to follow?

    Liked by 1 person

    • drgsrinivas  On May 14, 2015 at 12:26 am

      I know that isn’t the easiest bit to understand and it does stretch one’s imagination. But surely it would yield to commonsense if one can dedicate one’s valuable time. Sorry but I haven’t got any animation to make things easier right now, I will consider creating one in the future. (I am a surgeon in full time practice and just trying to balance my profession and my interest in physics. My wife who is also a doctor wouldn’t be too happy if I wind up my practice and just do physics though I love that!)

      BTW, the first page of my double slit experiment (https://debunkingrelativity.com/2013/12/08/explaining-the-double-slit-experiment/) is quite straight forward and simple to follow. That demystifies the myth of wave particle duality of light, the ‘Achilles heel’ of quantum mechanics and relativity.

      Like

  • J Jagannath  On May 15, 2015 at 3:14 pm

    DrG, since you’re a surgeon with a strong physics background, I wanted to ask you what you thought of the Chapter titled, Immortality. I suggest that our circulatory system is running at a loss right now, and is not delivering what the cells needs at the rate at it needs and it steadily falls over the course of our lifetime. And this should cause visible changes in the system, that manifests itself as aging. Do you agree with this type of definition of aging?

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On August 29, 2015 at 10:45 pm

      Jagannath,
      Apologies for the long delay.
      I have read your thoughts on immortality. I agree that living beings can be considered as some kind of machines because ultimately what underlies biology is physics. And every biological process can be traced down to and explained in terms of a set of physical phenomena.

      Yes, if we provide a steady supply of energy and regularly cleanse the parts (filtration), a machine can be made to function longer. But it is unlikely that the machine (or car) works for ever, the reason is that it succumbs to wear and tear. So for a machine to work forever, it needs regular service, repair and replacement of parts damaged by the wear and tear. (Of course, when we replace the vital parts, one may wonder whether we are still dealing with the same machine or a new one!)

      Same is the case with living beings. All living beings are endowed with repair/ renewal mechanisms. As long we supply the energy and nutrients, they are able to synthesize proteins and other essential components and are able to ‘patch’ up the damage. But the repair machinery of living beings is not divine and has to come from some kind of physical machinery and hence does succumb to wear and tear over time.

      We know it is the friction that causes wear and tear. Can we avoid friction altogether and so the wear and tear? No, because, if there was no friction, no machine would work. But we know that there are ways to minimise friction for machinery. And the same must also exist for living beings. I think all the biological systems including our circulatory system have already been designed to operate with least friction and at maximum efficiency in the given circumstances. So there is probably little we can do in terms of improving their ‘innate’ efficiency, I think (except when there is a treatable disease). But yes, healthy life styles help the body systems work efficiently for longer time by avoiding undue ‘loads’ and by minimising the frictional damage. I think yoga, spiritual enlightenment, healthy diet etc help one to live in harmony with the Nature and carry on with life processes with minimal friction and thus help one to live longer. But unfortunately, exactly the opposite is happening in our modern scientific civilised and ‘developed’ society- we are fighting with everything in Nature to live!

      Like

  • Renamx  On July 7, 2015 at 12:02 pm

    Hi , I’m sorry friend but aether is not stated as a particle , particle is a figure of speech , aether acts like a superfluid , mass is the the materialisation of that aether by the toroidal Torus , aether is what is causing electric charges to exist! , again aether is not actually a particle , it’s just an idea to describe the fabric of space that makes the Illusion of reality as we perceive it …

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On July 12, 2015 at 4:38 pm

      So ether is not stated as a particle. and it acts like a superfluid! but according to which authorities? That’s how modern scientists have disproved ether- first they imagined ether as some funny stupid stuff and then they disproved the existence of that funny stuff using some stupid methodology. So ether doesn’t exist for them.

      For those people who can’t come out of their fixed belief about ether (because somebody has stated/defined that as some weird stuff), I have a simple solution to help them understand my theory: just replace the word ‘ether’ with ‘cosmic ocean of photons’.

      Like

  • Di Gallinari  On July 14, 2015 at 1:45 pm

    cosmic ocean of photons? based on what? and you forgot that photons aren’t particles too, my friend.

    Like

  • Di Gallinari  On July 14, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    photons are just excitations of light field, you should not care what science says about aether, aether is not particle, nor photon, aether is something invisible that can not be seen by us, nor by science, but by meditation, by deep meditation you can feel this force, this energy that created everything . And I’m sure it has nothing to do with photons.

    Like

  • Di Gallinari  On July 14, 2015 at 1:55 pm

    including photon/light are also created by the ether. which are part of material world.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On July 16, 2015 at 8:10 pm

      I don’t actually disagree with that notion of Ether. In fact I have expressed a similar view at https://debunkingrelativity.com/2014/03/29/the-divine-stuff-explains-all/
      “— The concept of photonic Ether immediately rises two questions i.e. what constitutes a photon particle? And what lies in between the photon particles? Like physicists, one may imagine that photons are fundamental particles and the space in between them is empty. But as a logician, I find it difficult to believe so- how can any particle be considered indivisible? And how can there be space that has nothing in it? So by no means, we can consider Ether or photons as the most fundamental stuff in Nature. It may that there is Ether and there is ultra-Ether in between the Ether particles and there is ultra-ultra-Ether and so on. Understanding each of them simply takes us to a deeper layer of reality but by no means gives us the complete picture about Nature – it is just like peeling another layer of an infinitely covered onion. So it is true to say that we can never understand the ultimate reality or reach the deepest layer by clinging to the material science. This is where the importance of ‘Spiritual science’ comes. Only spiritual and philosophical thinking can help us understand and experience the Nature through to the deepest layer of reality and help us achieve Enlightenment and realise the ultimate truth”

      And I agree that everything in this material world that we see and experience including water molecules, photons, sand particles and baseballs are made from the same fundamental divine energy which we may call as Ether. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t describe water, sand, light and baseballs in terms of particles or matter.
      Just like how collections of water molecules make water and form oceans, why can’t we propose that photon particles fill this universe and make ‘photonic ether’? The fact that water molecules are ultimately made from your divine Ether can’t prevent us from describing water molecules in terms of particles. Similarly the fact that photons are ultimately made from your nonmaterial Ether shouldn’t prevent us from describing photons as particles.

      If you think photons are not particles but are just excitations of ‘light field’, we can similarly propose that water molecules and baseballs are not particles but are just excitations of some mysterious field though we think we see them as particles.

      BTW, the mythical word ‘field’ was invented in physics to help the physicists hide their ignorance. So according to me the word ‘field’ in the discipline science stands for ‘ignorance masquerading as knowledge’.

      Finally, the interference pattern observed in DSE is a physical phenomenon and which is not beyond any material logic. It yields to simple and straight forward material logic without the need for any mystical or nonsensical theories. It is as simple as explaining the physical reason for the shadow formed behind a wall.
      It doesn’t need deep meditation or experiencing the divine Ether for one to explain the observed physical behaviour of light or any material object.

      Immature spiritual philosophy will only add to the already messed up material science.
      And unlike what most people think, spirituality doesn’t mean experiencing some mystical phenomenon that is beyond logic. Rather it represents the highest form of rational thinking- the only way to realise the ultimate truth.

      Like

  • Galacar  On July 16, 2015 at 12:51 am

    Di Gallinari wrote:

    “photons are just excitations of light field, you should not care what science says about aether, aether is not particle, nor photon, aether is something invisible that can not be seen by us, nor by science, but by meditation, by deep meditation you can feel this force, this energy that created everything . And I’m sure it has nothing to do with photons.”

    I agree!

    This is what Tesla said:

    “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”

    ― Nikola Tesla

    No wonder one of the dogma’s in ‘modern religion eh oeps science’ is that everything needs to be measured.Or otherwise it doesn’t exist!

    Yeah right! Just think about that and let it sink in that it is nonsense!

    Like

  • Hywel  On July 24, 2015 at 8:01 pm

    Galacar: can you direct me to a book or web etc on Tesla and ether?

    Like

    • Galacar  On August 13, 2015 at 11:05 pm

      Hywel

      I apologize for my late reaction. Just seen the post.

      There is a sort of biography out about Tesla,

      It is called ‘the future is mine”

      But I can’t find it on amazon. I have read it as a dutch book.

      If the english title is different and I will find out I will tell you, ok?

      If you don’t know anything about Tesla, I think it is the best place to start.

      Then there are some sites like

      http://www.keelynet.com.

      very very interessting to say the least. But Technical.

      And of course try combining google and Tesla 😉

      However I speculate there will be lots of desinformation.on google searches.

      Hope this helps.

      Now I am away, knocking some physic myths over so we can make place for that

      real genius! 😉

      Like

  • Galacar  On August 13, 2015 at 11:12 pm

    Hywel

    I cjecked the book about Tesla and it is NOT an translaition

    it is a dutch book by origin. Sorry about that.

    If a find a good english book I wil tell you

    Like

  • Galacar  On August 13, 2015 at 11:16 pm

    Hywel

    Goody, awhole list here!

    http://www.bol.com/nl/c/boeken/nikola-tesla/340785/index.html

    Are you aware that all the invention subscribed to other people were in reality made by Tesla?

    The lightbulb (NOT Edison). Radio (Not Marconi).rontgen etc etc?

    Wow, what did Einstein ever created? O yeah..a book .;)

    Like

  • Galacar  On August 13, 2015 at 11:24 pm

    Oh oeps I made a mistake. sorry

    The Dutch book I referred to was english after all:

    “inventions: the autobiography of Nikola Tesla”

    http://www.amazon.com/My-Inventions-Autobiography-Unabridged-Publishing-ebook/dp/B00CBDC9D0/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1439488234&sr=8-2&keywords=inventions:+the+autobiography+of+Nikola+Tesla

    Gee what was I thinking. 😉

    btw I know some very weird things about Tesla. Some would call it esoteric.
    He for sure isn’t who you think it is. But you have to be really open to ‘grok it”

    Like

  • Hywel  On August 24, 2015 at 8:07 pm

    galacar
    thanks i will look at this.

    Like

  • Galacar  On January 10, 2016 at 9:52 pm

    And then there is this:

    (Remember my last comments about the power of our consciousness?)

    “The Amazing Story of the Clairvoyants Who Observed Atoms

    From 1895 to 1933, Annie Besant (1847-1933) and Charles Leadbeater (1854-1934), two of the best known theosophists and metaphysicians of the 20th century, conducted clairvoyant investigations into all of the then known elements and certain compounds in order to observe the so-called “fundamental building blocks” that composed them, as well as their general structure. This involved the apprehension of visual information at sub-microscopic levels far beyond the ability of the eyes to perceive. The term for this kind of clairvoyant perception today is micro-psi (Besant and Leadbeater referred to it as “magnifying clairvoyance”).

    (..)
    Hydrogen, the first chemical atom selected for analysis, and possessing the lowest atomic weight, was found to be composed of eighteen smaller entities. Clairvoyantly it was seen to consist of six small bodies, contained in an egg-like form. According to Leadbeater/Besant, it rotated with great rapidity on its own axis, vibrating at the same time, and the internal bodies performed similar gyrations. “The whole atom spins and quivers, and has to be steadied before exact observation is possible,” they wrote.

    More to be find here:

    http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/01/09/the-amazing-story-of-the-clairvoyants-who-observed-atoms/

    I get all excited when I read these things!
    Here we see again the power of consciousness!

    Now, why didn’t we NEVER got any of this at university level physics courses?

    O yes, I forgot, this wasn’t shite and bollocks, like the rest of the science classes!

    😉

    My o my , what a mad world this is.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On January 11, 2016 at 12:20 am

      Galacar, I can’t thank you enough. Great stuff.
      Until now I didn’t know who is Bill Hicks. Now I have great respect for him having read his quotes in your other reply.
      We can’t expect our scientists to have wisdom. They have sacrificed their wisdom to become what they are now!

      Like

  • Galacar  On January 11, 2016 at 12:45 am

    drgsrinivas wrote:

    “Galacar, I can’t thank you enough. Great stuff.”

    You are very welcome and thank you very much.
    Now this does more then you think to me.
    Most of the time I expect lots of ridicule when bringing this forward.
    Not that that ever stopped me, though. 😉

    Let’s just say that this kind of very nice remarks keep me going.

    So, Thank you!

    Like

  • Galacar  On January 11, 2016 at 12:57 am

    drgsrinivas,

    “We can’t expect our scientists to have wisdom. They have sacrificed their wisdom to become what they are now!”

    Well, yes you are right here. However I don’t blame the scientists.
    They were made dumb and stupid from the day they started school-indoctrination.They were lulled into a very sick system.
    It was the same with me, but because of my very complex background, but I won’t
    go into that here, I always had a softspot for the people who were different.
    The strange ones. The ones that don’t automatically conform.
    At university I was very very interested in a man wo wrote articles against the theory of relativity. But , of course, he was ridiculed and mocked, without any investigation, by my fellow students.
    When I left college and started research the fringe things, so to say, the ‘forbidden things”, the world made a lot more sense to me.

    But that I don’t blame them doesn;t mean I laugh a lot about their ‘scientific theories”! I do and I mock all those theories.

    And, as I have stated before they can unlearn what the learned,

    Now, here is the problem:

    “It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

    ― Mark Twain

    Namaste!

    Like

  • charan  On January 11, 2016 at 8:37 pm

    To Dr.G.Srinivas,
    1) Firstly, I would just like to share this following link:
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281863959_Particle_Physics_and_the_Vaisheshika_System_A_Comparative_Analysis
    [Note: (This is only a limited re-search, for the current day.)
    Here, Rishi Kanada has derived all his conclusions from experiential-experimental techniques. And, I believe this is a better way of “understanding physics”. (I am avoiding the terminology of ”doing physics” here.) ]
    —We need a completely different ‘plane of experiential understanding’ (that Rishi Kanada has done here) to interpret nature. Needless to say, the current procedures are more un-scientific than science itself!!
    —The whole current philosophy of ‘quantifying nature’ and ‘extracting-exploiting’ few ideas from it, in a reductionist manner, is having very disastrous consequences.
    Simply putting: you cannot understand nature if you do not have a complete understanding of “yourself”.
    2) I believe ‘Science’ is the root cause of environmental crisis that the world is so badly facing today, and most importantly the all pervading spiritual crisis is the illegitimate child of so-called ‘science'(i.e. in the modern days).
    3) I disagree with Galacar that we have been “lied to all the way from cradle to grave”. Instead, I believe that we have been fooled from “mother`s womb to soul”. (And apparently, soul is something that stays on this earth even after death!!)
    —But I sincerely believe that: truth shall find its well-deserved place on this beautiful earth one day.
    Thanks.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On January 13, 2016 at 10:25 am

      Charan, thank you for that interesting link on Vedic scientific philosophy. I think we can gain more wisdom by interpreting the Vedic science on its own. I believe that attempts to conform our Vedic teachings to those of our modern physics takes us nowhere near the Truth. For example, the author tried to argue that our Vedic teachings didn’t believe in Ether universe. That obviously shows that the author was heavily influenced by the absurd physics of our modern day while interpreting the Verse in Vedas.

      Whenever I see people forcefully draw parallels between the Vedic sciences and modern science, I feel they are in a way insulting the Vedas. How can we compare the divine knowledge in Vedas with the absurd teachings of our modern science?

      It would make much more sense if physicists cross check with Vedic literature to see if they are on the right track and to validate their scientific theories. Doing the other way round would only make things worse.

      Like

  • Galacar  On January 11, 2016 at 10:05 pm

    charan wrote:

    “2) I believe ‘Science’ is the root cause of environmental crisis that the world is so badly facing today, ”

    Sorry, charan, but what exactly are you referring to here?

    @charan

    “3) I disagree with Galacar that we have been “lied to all the way from cradle to grave”. Instead, I believe that we have been fooled from “mother`s womb to soul”. (And apparently, soul is something that stays on this earth even after death!!)”

    Maybe you are right, but I do not completely understand what you mean here.
    So it is difficult for me to react to this.
    Can you please elaborate? Thank you.

    But I sincerely believe that: truth shall find its well-deserved place on this beautiful earth one day.

    I for sure do agree on that!

    Namaste!

    Like

  • Réz Viktor  On February 2, 2016 at 4:12 pm

    Viktor Réz
    I think you did not explained the twist of double slit, namely, when we try to figure out which electron went trought which slit, the wave nature dissapears, makes us feel, it knows if we are watching! Please rethink.

    Like

  • Galacar  On August 19, 2016 at 9:42 pm

    My update on CERN:

    “10 Things We Know About The Mock Human Sacrifice That Was Just Conducted At CERN

    Have you seen the video of the “mock human sacrifice” that was conducted right outside the entrance of CERN? A spokeswoman for the European Organization for Nuclear Research (more commonly known as CERN) has told the public that this ritual happened without their permission and that they are looking into the matter. If this “occult ritual” was indeed some kind of “sick joke”, what was the motivation? This new video continues a long string of bizarre events related to CERN and the Large Hadron Collider that is housed there. Last month, I wrote about strange “portal-shaped clouds” that formed over CERN during recent experiments. And the the director of research at CERN, physicist Sergio Bertolucci, has publicly admitted in the past that the Large Hadron Collider could potentially open up a “door” to “an extra dimension”. There has been so much speculation about what is really going on there, and that makes this latest video that much more creepy. If you have not seen it yet, you can view it on YouTube right here…

    http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/10-things-we-know-about-the-mock-human-sacrifice-that-was-just-conducted-at-cern

    Well, I did say dark things are going on there….

    I bet it’s is even weirder then we even can imagine!

    Namaste!

    Galacar

    Like

    • Trevin  On August 23, 2016 at 6:43 am

      Come on. You should know that witchcraft is not going to cause dark clouds to loom over CERN. Be smart and believe in science; stop being superstitious.

      Like

  • Galacar  On August 23, 2016 at 10:38 pm

    @Trevin

    You are missing the point here.

    But I will start with this quote from the first movie “The Matrix”:

    “The Matrix is everywhere, it is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.”

    I am not the one superstitious here.
    The people there do believe in this, not me, and I have hinted about this all
    over the site.

    First, because you mentioned ‘science’.and aks me to ”believe; in science’ ,
    ‘science’ is a control tool for the masses and has NOTHING to do with any truthfinding and ANYTHING to do with hiding any truths.
    (Hence THIS great site about the ridiculous theories!. Those extremely stupid theories are here to blind us from any truth and don’t let us into
    sensistive areas, like ‘free energy etc)
    O boy, so much to say on only that topic by itself. It is a HUGE subject.
    If I wouild do a lecture it would take at least some hours.

    Furthermore, the people who have ‘given’ us ‘science’ don’t believe one yota in ‘science’ the way they teach us, BECAUSE they are deep, very deep and I mean very deep into dark occult magic! BUT they want to keep us away from that.Hence they gave us their ‘science’.
    (And also for e.g. ‘Holly Wood, the holy woods of the Druids!, yes, Hollywood is run by the same people, they use movies to put spells on us and condition us for what is coming and soo much more. Sounds ridiculous? I understand, but do the homework and I guarantee that this is what you will find.)

    I know this is a far stretch for a lot of people but e.g. 9-11 was a deep dark occult ritual as well done by the same group as in cern ( at the top that is).

    Now of course this can be denied by reflex action, as I did before I started
    studying this field. So, I understand where you are coming from, I have been there also.
    However, as I also have stated a lot of times, the ‘rabbit hole’ goes very very deep.
    So, deny it, or start researching it. That’s up to you.

    And what those people are doing behind the scenes are things you and I even can’t begin to imagine,

    But people are starting to wake up to what is really going on..More and more, and I have seen this.
    I went to lectures about this and only some hundred people. Now they are in the thousends!

    Yes, these wolrd is ‘run’ by people into the dark occult, hence the ritual in CERN.

    Furthermore, ALL people at the top of banks, universities, corporations, governments are deep into the dark occult. Some because they want to, some are forced or blackmauked, etc.
    I understand if you don’t believe me but please look up “Bohemian Grove” were all these people regulalry meet for, yep, their dark occult rituals.

    Now, they wil come more and more about in the open in the coming time. Exactly what I predicted with CERN if you see my older postings.

    Another thing is is that I am aware that this posting will be uncomplete, because we are talking about a huge jig-saw-puzzel here.
    So the readers will have a lot of questions after reading this. E.g. the question how all of this is pulled off. I understand,
    As far as I am concerned people can ask me questions by e-mail if they want to, because I don’t want to clog this site, because it’s over
    physics, BUT that is a part of the whole thing.

    Now the last thing I want to say is to NOT BELIEVE A WORD I WROTE!

    Not because it is not true, I really think it is. But check these things for yourself. This is a very important point.
    You have to convince yourself,
    I have researched this topic for at least 15 years now and still researching. But it is very freeing to discover how we are being manipulated.
    That way you can ‘free your mind”!

    So,

    Welcome,Trevin, to the REAL WORLD.

    Do you now better understand the quote at beginning?

    “(..). It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.”

    Just my two cents.

    Galacar

    Like

  • xsquirrel  On November 20, 2016 at 6:06 am

    Chuckle, chuckle, looking for some real science and found this wacky nonsense – gave me something to laugh about.
    I teach science & in no way believe in the occult or in fact in any gods (note the small ‘g’).

    Disproving double slit by going backwards a long way to luminiferous ether (further chuckles), which was itself disproved long ago……

    I know that there are problems within science, we don’t know everything – but quantum mechanics predicts fantastically well the results of double slit experiments, although it doesn’t really explain what is going on as it happens. Is this because QM is incomplete? probably, but at least it’s making a good attempt. As to debunking wave-particle duality, I can and have set up experiments showing both, that are explained incredibly well by QM and not at all by ether. You really should get your science up to scratch – our macroscopic observations of the world are not the same as what is going on at the sub-atomic level.

    I understand that science like every facet of human existence has its problems and many of the paths that we should be taking, we are not because they are controlled by money (I think you’ll find that’s more likely to be the real problem).

    Yes question everything, but if you really are going to do this; provide a theory that provides results that can be repeated, not just some mumbo jumbo nonsense because the scientific results don’t agree with your everyday ‘commonsense’ experiences.

    Like

    • drgsrinivas  On November 20, 2016 at 4:59 pm

      That’s the whole problem with science nowadays: People who don’t know science teach us science!
      The so called ‘science teachers’ religiously believe in and propagate everything that their demigods of science (who call themselves as scientists) preach them. If they don’t, they lose their jobs and income.

      Dear xsquirrel, I am not against you earning your livelihood but don’t waste your time here teaching your religious mythology. Religious myths and superstitions are not entertained here even when they come disguising as science.

      BTW, Enlightened minds know the Truth that things that we really need and things that are really good for us are available for free in Nature- good air, good water, good food, true love etc. So they lead a peaceful, happy and healthy life in harmony with Nature without craving for money. That’s how the Rishis of ancient India had lived. And they are the real teachers and not you folk who teach for money.

      To impart true education, we need true teachers i.e. people who possess true wisdom. As I said before, people who possess true wisdom need no money. That is to say, true education is free!

      On the other hand, if you want to acquire false knowledge or harmful things, you will surely have to compete and pay :- modern education, modern medicine, your junk processed food, the various beverages including your ultraclean bottled water, air conditioners and the various gadgets to which the mankind got addicted in this modern society.

      See, how beautiful and elegant is this Creation! All good things come for free in Nature and you only need to compete for and pay for things that are harmful.

      Finally, Dear believer, scientific results have never been in disagreement with the commonsense experiences and our macroscopic observations. Its only your your stupid theories that are in disagreement with both. And that is the whole argument here on this blog. The fact that your absurd theories have been able to explain some particular result in a limited sense doesn’t mean that we must discard our larger world view and believe in your absurd theories. Apart from your QM and relativity, here are some absurd theories that appear to successfully explain experimental results. https://debunkingrelativity.com/2012/03/11/the-language-of-mathematics/

      Like

    • xsquirrel  On November 26, 2016 at 11:21 pm

      Ok,I have to come back at this,
      ‘people who don’t know science teach science’ – careful where you’re treading there buddy.
      I’m sure you, like me, have built up your knowledge and ideas over a number of years; I have done so through study, reading (including many sites like this) and because I am in the privileged position of being a science teacher – so I get to do experiments, that I know work and can provide repeatable results time and time again. These results also agree with current theories that provide explanations for many things, but are still incomplete in many instances.
      The only way we can look at the world is through measurement – if you tell me you can project onto the astral plane and you want me to believe you, then you have to show me something that allows me to measure your experience against my own – if you just tell me, don’t be surprised if I tell that’s bullshit and I won’t be surprised nor care if you tell me that my mind is too closed off to accept such an idea.
      Pretty much everything on this blog is that science is a religion, everyone in the world of science has been indoctrinated in crazy ideas and the problem is that many of these ideas give counter-intuitive answers to everyday commonsense and logic. All you give back as an antidote to that, is unsurprisingly – physics! (albeit Newtonian physics or outdated physics) explanations with a bit of religious phrasing thrown in – why would the creator do such a crazy thing (now that is religion). At what point did you decide that ‘this physics’ is OK but ‘this other physics’ is not? Is it when the physics doesn’t go against commonsense that it’s ok? because I have many actual (not thought experiments), even Newtonian physics experiments that challenge everyday commonsense and everyday experience.
      You also state the infallibility of logic, but can logic be subverted? again there are many logic problems, even from ancient history, that still puzzle thinkers today (e.g. Sorites’ paradox – there are ‘solutions’ but they’re a bit arbitrary, so is that logical?).

      Your ‘ether’ explanation is a bit silly really; why is this bit of outdated science ok? yet other aspects not ok? And how does your under water gun firing particles that then create pressure waves, which can then cause interference patterns explain what happens when one slit is observed – making, in the real world, the interference pattern disappear (a relatively easy experiment to do btw)

      Finally btw Galacar, you say I need to unlearn everything – hmm – rather can you not tell me what I do need to learn, I fear not (fruitless?). But if you want, why not telepathise (or maybe just a link) a Telsa anti gravity engine or perpetual motion device over to me – if you do that & I get a real working plan, then that really would be a real shock and maybe I’d start believing you guys…..

      Oh and cadxx – electrons can move in curved paths under the action of a curved electric field.

      BTW it’s power & money that are the problem (throw in religion too), not science

      Keep me giggling and questioning!

      Regards

      Xsquirrel

      Like

    • drgsrinivas  On December 2, 2016 at 11:39 pm

      Dear Xsquirrel,
      After all that long reply, you didn’t confess whether you teach science for free or for money. That would have proved whether you first understand the secrets of Nature to be able to teach others ‘science’.

      “Your ‘ether’ explanation is a bit silly really; —– And how does your under water gun firing particles that then create pressure waves, which can then cause interference patterns explain what happens when one slit is observed – making, in the real world, the interference pattern disappear (a relatively easy experiment to do btw)”

      Dear blind believer of science, I have explained about that already. Please study this blog with both your mind and eyes open: https://debunkingrelativity.com/2013/12/08/explaining-the-double-slit-experiment/#comment-5336

      Coming to your illogical argument against Logic (BTW, do you realize that you are trying to use logic to argue against logic?)

      Logic is the basis of all human knowledge including science. No experiment or observation straight away proves or disproves any theory. One has to logically analyse the data and logically interpret the observations to prove or disprove any theory. Otherwise any silly observation or experiment can be argued as proof of any weird theory. For example, an illogical mind may argue flying kites as proof of return of Dinosaurs onto the Earth after about 4000 years. You can’t argue against that weird proposition if you don’t believe in the importance of logic in interpreting things. (Of course you could show falling flights as disproof of that wild proposition because there is no logical restraint!)

      Whenever some experiment yields results that appear to go against our logic, it doesn’t mean that Nature is illogical or that Logic is a failure there. It just reflects our logical inability and ignorance. Only when we dig deep enough we will realise the logical link there.

      Like

    • Galacar  On November 20, 2016 at 6:22 pm

      @xsquirre

      With all due respect,

      As a rule, I often ask before I try to explain something to someone if he or she is a
      ‘scientist’ ‘teacher’ or another breed of the same kind.
      If this is so, mostly, I stop the discussion because it is a fruitless exercise.
      This is so because they first have to UNLEARN what they have learned.
      And what they have learned, or better, have been indoctrinated to, is a BELIEF SYSTEM.

      What does one do if the BELIEF system is attacked. Right! Defending it.
      Just like a religious fundamentalist.
      I see you doing this as well. Understand me well, I am not judging you,
      you are a victim of the system, as most people are.

      And have you read all the postings on this site? Quantum Mechanics is all
      bollocks and gobblygook.
      And mind you, I have studied physics and clinical psychology at university level.
      Not to mean that you have to believe what I write, far far far from it.
      But I want to clarify that I have also believed very strongly in the dogmatic beliefs of science. I had to unlearn a lot and still do.
      I guarantee you that one day you will have to do the same.

      You also wrote ‘I know that there are problems within science’. Well, I see hundred and more problems within ‘science’ . expecially physics and biology. But also psychology because there is a very dark agenda running of which I was not aware at the time that I studied that subject.

      Some questions to you:

      As a teacher of ‘science’ have you ever wondered why the works of Tesla was en is not teached in our indoctrination institutions?

      And have you also wondered why there is NO technogical progress
      because of ‘modern science’? Nothing, Zills, Nada, Nop,Zero.
      How do you account for that?

      Xsquirre

      Take your time, this is really a process of unlearning and might be really shocking at times. I have seen people vomit when they were confronted with how this world really works.

      I can tell you, it is far , very very far, removed from what the indoctrinationinstitutions, the mass media etc are telling us.

      You will be in for a shock, that is for sure.

      Namaste!

      Galacar

      Like

  • cadxx  On November 22, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    I had to write something on your site about the electron because electricity is so important to the physical universe (contrary to what astronomers and physicists would have us believe). Immanuel Velikovsky’s Electric Universe has become a cottage science in it’s own right as a direct result of neglect by the mainstream.

    I have serious reservations about the electron, cathode rays, the research that led to their “discovery” and the stuff we read in books. I keep revising this stuff on my website in an attempt to reduce it to its most simple terms.

    The original cathode ray tube by Micheal Faraday was a tube with a cathode at one end and an anode at the other. This follows the usual most basic ideas of electronics giving a simple circuit + and -. The electrons (we are told) enter through the cathode – and proceed through the tube to the anode and then back to the electrical source … Ta Dah! an electrical circuit. But it don’t work like that!

    As people like William Crookes and JJ Thomson’s experimented they moved the anode to various places on the tube, unlike the straightforward Faraday tube. If we Google some graphics we find that in some the anode is to the side in its own extended tube. Any current would need to bend into it to form a circuit. In another the anode is close to the cathode with a hole in the middle to allow the cathode rays to pass through it. (There is no discussion about this that I’ve been able to find)
    The main feature in Thomson’s experiments was the deflection of the cathode rays, but it is never mentioned that the strongest attraction (If we are dealing with electrons) should rightly come from the anode. But looking at the experiments there seems to be little or no attraction of the negative cathode waves (electrons) toward the positive anode. This is what intreaged me.

    Thomson (and others in a true history) had to insert two charged plates within the tube, positive and negative, in order to deflect the rays. https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/High_School_Chemistry/Further_Understanding_of_the_Atom
    I would love to hear a plausible explanation as to why this is.

    Thomson himself was baffled as to what the rays were and surmised that they were as a result of the tenuous gas left in the tube after evacuation. But later when vacuum tubes began to be manufactured it was found that they were more efficient with a hard vacuum and so it was not the gas.

    Another question is where do the electrons come from? We are told by Wiki that electrons move very slowly. So why does not the cathode become depleted of electrons? The theory of push electrons becomes untenable when we consider that a current can flow in both directions at the same time in a conductor.

    There is no direct evidence that the electron was ever discovered.

    cadxx

    Liked by 2 people

  • Galacar  On November 23, 2016 at 12:17 am

    Hi cadxx

    You wrote “There is no direct evidence that the electron was ever discovered.

    Please read the book I have mentioned here:

    https://debunkingrelativity.com/2016/03/08/a-simple-experiment-to-debunk-the-big-bang-myth/#comment-7013

    I don’t know if you have seen this yet, hence my reference to it here.

    It adress this kind of questions.it takes you gradually out of the whole nuclear atomic rabbit hole! including electrons , protons and what have you!

    Personally I do more believe in the ‘atoms’ seen by claivoyants and what have you.

    btw I just started pendulum dowsing and I am now wondering if it is possible to
    ask all these kind of questions with dowsing,
    I know people who have used dowsing for measuring surface tension of water and a whole lot of other extraordinary ( from the mainstream point of view) things, Like counting the amount of cows or horses someone had.
    I am rather in awe of this whole thing called dowsing and when I am confident enough I will use it for asking ‘physics’ quiestions.
    That might open up a whole other can of worms! lol

    Namaste!

    Galacar

    Liked by 1 person

  • cadxx  On November 24, 2016 at 1:35 am

    Hi Galacar
    I have to admire your courage in using dowsing for physics. I use dowsing occasionally and I use cards more often, but I never used dowsing for science. As I recall, some time ago, my card reading for the USA was “The honeymoon is over”. I think that was pretty accurate. I very often do myself a card reading and I’m encouraged to continue debunking science, they tend to offer help with finding answers rather than actual answers.

    If you want to do this you need a reliable guide: It may be the masters or angelic or the elementals, or gods and goddesses, there are no hard fast rules. Do your own thing but don’t leave the door open for all and sundry. Ask someone who already does whatever you are going to do.
    Spirituality is about intent, what you intend to do must be made clear. Then you will find that it works.

    If anyone wants a reading I would be glad to do one for them.
    cadxx

    Like

  • Galacar  On November 24, 2016 at 11:35 am

    Hi cadxx

    First I don’t exactly see what courage has to do with anything, but maybe you can explain.
    Furthermore, if I will use dowsing for physics, I will use it as a start to find some things out. I will then always check out in other ways.
    And I know some master-dowser and hope to meet him one day.

    My only problem at the moment is lack of time. Sounds familiar?

    Namaste!

    Galacar

    Like

  • cadxx  On November 24, 2016 at 7:22 pm

    Hi Galacar
    The word courage is not really the meaning I was trying to put across – maybe ‘admire your ambition’ would have been more acceptable. It’s sometimes difficult to convey true meaning in a few sentences and this leads to unintended misunderstandings. Dowsing is limited to binary – yes – no answers and this makes it difficult to frame the complex questions that are needed to question science. I have no idea how you could overcome this, but maybe I’m wrong and you will do so. Anything is possible!

    My own personal experience is that I started at a young age reading everything I could lay my hands on. I used to read whole sets of encyclopedias without knowing why I was doing so. This went on for years, just an obsession for knowledge for the sake of it. I read the local library dry. No plan. In later years I started to notice a conflict of ideas like science v spirituality. Science was debunking things well established on the grounds that “New Ideas” are better than old ideas (presentism).

    The crunch came when I found the Velikovsky Affair in the seventies. Here was a guy, a scientist, a colleague of Einstein at the time, making untold correct predictions, best selling book, being called childish names by astronomers. It was at about this time that NASA was starting to send successful probes around the solar system and all the solar system astronomy books were trashed, thrown in the bin. Try to find a 1950’s solar system astronomy book today???

    Next came the earlier Charles Fort and his hard to read books, that ridiculed mostly astronomers but also science in general and I started to realise what was going on. Later I decided to test myself with a baptism of fire on Talk Origins forum. To my surprise I made headway and managed to beat-off the scientists at their own game. I spoke to Richard Dawkins on TO but he refused to play the game. This I found is common among scientists – they don’t answer awkward questions.

    This has been a long hard road (I failed to mention the hackers who regularly send a cyber bomb to destroy my PC), not something I would recommend. It takes an unassailable determination and huge confidence in your own thinking ability. Good luck.
    cadxx

    Like

    • Galacar  On November 27, 2016 at 6:38 pm

      cadxx wrote:

      “Galacar
      The word courage is not really the meaning I was trying to put across – maybe ‘admire your ambition’ would have been more acceptable. It’s sometimes difficult to convey true meaning in a few sentences and this leads to unintended misunderstandings.”

      That’s ok, I understand the limitations of this medium.I understand you better now.

      cadxx wrote:

      “Dowsing is limited to binary – yes – no answers and this makes it difficult to frame the complex questions that are needed to question science.”

      Well, you can do more then binary questions if you have the ‘right’ charts. If someone can dowse the surface tension of water, I am really curious, But I am just beginning.
      If something scientific comes up, I let you know here, ok?

      cadxx wrote

      “I have no idea how you could overcome this, but maybe I’m wrong and you will do so. Anything is possible!”

      That’s the spirit! lol
      I really think most people have no idea how powerfull we really are!

      cadxx wrote

      “My own personal experience is that I started at a young age reading everything I could lay my hands on. I used to read whole sets of encyclopedias without knowing why I was doing so. This went on for years, just an obsession for knowledge for the sake of it.”

      Some recognition here!

      cadxx wrote

      “I read the local library dry. No plan. In later years I started to notice a conflict of ideas like science v spirituality. Science was debunking things well established on the grounds that “New Ideas” are better than old ideas (presentism).”

      ok

      cadxx wrote:

      ” The crunch came when I found the Velikovsky Affair in the seventies. Here was a guy, a scientist, a colleague of Einstein at the time, making untold correct predictions, best selling book, being called childish names by astronomers.”

      Of course, as I have stayed numerous times, ‘science’ has nothing to do with thruth and everything with hinding it, hence the ridiculisation of the genius Velikovsky . btw I have his books here as well.

      cadxx wrote:

      “It was at about this time that NASA was starting to send successful probes around the solar system and all the solar system astronomy books were trashed, thrown in the bin. Try to find a 1950’s solar system astronomy book today???”

      interesting, thanks! Ah well, you do know where NASA stands for? NASA=Never A Straigh Answer
      and btw NASA is 1) a military organisation and 2) was started by the nazis!
      (aware of project paperclip?)

      cadxx wrote:

      “ext came the earlier Charles Fort and his hard to read books, that ridiculed mostly astronomers but also science in general and I started to realise what was going on.”

      I LOVE the books of Ford,they are freeing in a way.

      cadxx wrote:

      “Later I decided to test myself with a baptism of fire on Talk Origins forum. To my surprise I made headway and managed to beat-off the scientists at their own game. I spoke to Richard Dawkins on TO but he refused to play the game. This I found is common among scientists – they don’t answer awkward questions.

      With regards to this I like this quote:

      “he difficulty to me is a fatal one; and
      the fact that when you put it to many scientists, far from having an
      answer, they seem not even to understand what the difficulty is,
      assures me that I have not found a mare’s nest but detected a
      radical disease in their whole mode of thought from the very
      beginning. (The Weight of Glory, 135)”

      cadxx wrote:

      “This has been a long hard road (I failed to mention the hackers who regularly send a cyber bomb to destroy my PC), not something I would recommend. It takes an unassailable determination and huge confidence in your own thinking ability. Good luck.
      cadxx”

      Thanks, mate! Good luck as well!

      Namaste!

      Galacar

      Liked by 1 person

  • Galacar  On November 27, 2016 at 6:17 pm

    @xsquirrel

    I think this will be fruitless, but ah well…it’s sunday and I am in a very good mood.
    (sorry can’t measure my mood 😉 )

    Because you are a ‘science’ teacher, first this:

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    ― Upton Sinclair

    So, I think this applies to you.What do you think?

    Anyway, here we go:

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “Ok,I have to come back at this,
    ‘people who don’t know science teach science’ – careful where you’re treading there buddy.”

    Duh? What’s this? A threat or what? Very strange indeed,

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “I’m sure you, like me, have built up your knowledge and ideas over a number of years; I have done so through study, reading (including many sites like this) and because I am in the privileged position of being a science teacher – so I get to do experiments, that I know work and can provide repeatable results time and time again. These results also agree with current theories that provide explanations for many things, but are still incomplete in many instances.”

    First you are very vague here. What experiments exactly? Falling bodies, nuclear explosions or what?!
    Furthermore I think you are a product, as we all to certain extent are, of a deep perception-deception.
    and ‘agree with current theories????????????” well, with what theories? gravity? electricity?
    I have the feeling you are purposely very vague. Because if you would be less vague and more
    detailed we can show you the flaws. So in essence, you are not telling us any thing here.
    It’s worthless so far. I am not saying you can’t do better, so please do!

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “The only way we can look at the world is through measurement –”

    Yep. one of the huge dogmas of our time! I am not against measurement per se,
    But if you research the works of Nicola Tesla and Victor Schauberger, two REAL geniuses.
    you will find out that your ‘measuremt’ statement is not totally correct!
    You probably also belief in the ‘scientific method”? There is NO ‘scientitific method”
    If it worked exactly the whay it is taught at us on university level, we would be much further then we are now! It is more a recipe for disaster.

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “if you tell me you can project onto the astral plane and you want me to believe you, then you have to show me something that allows me to measure your experience against my own ”

    Very vague again. What is your stance about “near death experiences”? I am really curious to know,

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “– if you just tell me, don’t be surprised if I tell that’s bullshit and I won’t be surprised nor care if you tell me that my mind is too closed off to accept such an idea.”

    well, I think it is! 😉 closed off.

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “Pretty much everything on this blog is that science is a religion”

    Yep, because if you research where it is coming from and how it is structured, you will find out that
    when the religions became less effective for controlling the masses, ‘science’ was invented.
    It is, just like established religion, a control tool, It has NOTHING to wo with finding out any truths,
    Far, far, far, far from that! Hence this site.

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “everyone in the world of science has been indoctrinated in crazy ideas”

    yes, indeed. If you understand and see that this whole world is crazy and the world is kind of an asylum, it
    all makes more sense, doesn’t it?

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “and the problem is that many of these ideas give counter-intuitive answers to everyday commonsense and logic.”

    Research the works of Tesla and Schauberger and others and there is nothing counter-intuitive in their works, nothing!

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “All you give back as an antidote to that, is unsurprisingly – physics! (albeit Newtonian physics or outdated physics) explanations with a bit of religious phrasing thrown in – why would the creator do such a crazy thing (now that is religion). At what point did you decide that ‘this physics’ is OK but ‘this other physics’ is not? Is it when the physics doesn’t go against commonsense that it’s ok? because I have many actual (not thought experiments), even Newtonian physics experiments that challenge everyday commonsense and everyday experience.”

    Sorry but again, you are very very very vague here. On purpose?

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “You also state the infallibility of logic, but can logic be subverted? again there are many logic problems, even from ancient history, that still puzzle thinkers today (e.g. Sorites’ paradox – there are ‘solutions’ but they’re a bit arbitrary, so is that logical?).”

    What are you trying yo say here? I really think that logic is a very good and more solid base than ‘science” In all my years of ‘schooling’ I had not one iota on how to think, but only what to think!
    No studies in logic, nothing! Now isn’t that saying something?
    It is even worse, because the whole school system up to university is created to dumb people down!
    The ‘higher’ one is in ‘education (read: indoctrination) the dumber one is!
    At some point the mind is filled with so much rubbish that one is no longer able to think straight!
    And all this by design! And provable so.

    xsquirrel wrote:

    Your ‘ether’ explanation is a bit silly really; why is this bit of outdated science ok?

    It is not because it is outdated, That is not the reason, This is just one example of very illogical thinking on your part.(strawman fallacy?)
    Have you found out that there is nothing that comes out of ‘modern science’?
    And that a lot of technology that works was created when the ‘aether’ was in vogue?
    So, it is not because it is outdated, but because it works!

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “Finally btw Galacar, you say I need to unlearn everything”

    Yes, indeed, one day you have too, because it really is all wrong,Of course I do not mean you need too, that is up to you, But one day you really will find out it is all very flawed (“science” that is).

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “– hmm – rather can you not tell me what I do need to learn, I fear not (fruitless?).”

    Maybe it is best to start to read everything on this site. So far it looks you haven’t that done yet.
    Furthermore I would certainly refer to the works of Nikola Tesla or Victor Schauberger.
    Probably it is better to start with the latter.
    And now we are at it, when you teach ‘science’, do you teach the childeren who invented the lightbulb (not Edison, but Tesla!), who invented the radio (not Marconi but Tesla) and the list goes on and on and on.
    So, if you stay teaching the edison and marconi bullshit to children you are telling them lies and hence damaging them! You really have to change to change the world here!

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “But if you want, why not telepathise (or maybe just a link) a Telsa anti gravity engine or perpetual motion device over to me – if you do that & I get a real working plan, then that really would be a real shock and maybe I’d start believing you guys…..”

    Ridiculing is so cheap. Do some reseach into the two people I mentioned. That is if you dare to.

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “Oh and cadxx – electrons can move in curved paths under the action of a curved electric field.”

    There are no electrons, read the book yet about the case against the nuclear atom? I know, I know..

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “BTW it’s power & money that are the problem (throw in religion too), not science”

    It is only power, because the people creating these lies have enough money, because they really print money out of thin air! (fractional reserve banking)!!
    And I am not aginst real science. but I have never seen any of that in the indoctrination institutions!

    And I will end where I started:

    Because you are a ‘science’ teacher, first this:

    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

    ― Upton Sinclair

    So, I think this applies to you.What do you think?

    Hmm I trow this also in, for good measures! (to be seen elsewhere on this site!):

    “Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.”

    ― Michael Ellner”

    and there is even a deeper reason why it is all inverted, but I think this will be enough for now. 😉

    xsquirrel wrote:

    “Keep me giggling and questioning!”

    No problem and no hard feelings.

    “Regards
    Xsquirrel”

    Namaste!

    Galacar

    Liked by 2 people

  • cadxx  On November 27, 2016 at 7:01 pm

    Thanks for the reply Galacar
    Greetings all. I’ve updated my webpage on the electron – nothing vague I hope. If there is I would love to hear from you.
    Here is the link for anyone interested: https://nextexx.com/electron-deception-1/

    Like

    • Galacar  On November 27, 2016 at 10:37 pm

      @cadxx

      Just read your site, nice piece of work, mate!
      I myself am still strugling with some related things, and at the moment
      into the works of Walter Russel and others.
      Fascinatiing ,and the more you delve into this areas the more you will find out
      was a hogwash the whole of ‘modern physics’ really is!.

      Also fascinating to understand how ‘they
      have pulled it off! Let’s just say for now that a lot of people at the ‘top’
      of ‘science’ are deeply, very deeply and in very dark ways controlled.

      But we are waking up!

      Keep up the good works, mate!

      Namaste!

      Galacar

      Liked by 1 person

  • cadxx  On November 29, 2016 at 10:59 pm

    Hi Galacar
    You said:
    Also fascinating to understand how ‘they have pulled it off! Let’s just say for now that a lot of people at the ‘top’
    of ‘science’ are deeply, very deeply and in very dark ways controlled.

    From what I have read, the main push to destroy science started around 1900. (although the materialism was around much longer – probably from ancient Greek times) It took until the 1930’s for the old school to die-off and for the New Physics to become acceptable to the consensus. This also coincides with the decline of what I call the golden age of electrical inventiveness. People like Tesla and a few others were getting to grips with aether technology and this scared those who’s main aim is to make money. Around 1900, free energy was a realistic possibility. The change was accomplished with education, the media and threats, any dissident scientists were ridiculed or kicked out.

    The who is more difficult although there are clues: I was looking at your Youtube video’s on this thread. The propaganda that accompanies them is that it’s Satanism. Don’t be fooled by this, Satanism is derived from the Judao/Christian religion that is in turn a tool of control. So we have science and religion to chose from for our belief system. You are right, there is a deep dark force at play, a force that is both scientific and religious and it is about control. You need to ask who is it who can control both of these things? I would guess that the controllers are a group made up of the top men and women in money, industry, science, religion etc. and that they use some form of lower energy spirituality to encourage things to go their way. Spirituality does not need to be good, the universe, the source of all things sits at a point midway between the two…balance. Good and bad are human binary attributes. The controllers, Illuminati, bankers know all about this and they don’t mind doing some pretty bad things to the rest of us. Starting wars, cutting the money supply, suppressing technology, corrupting science, poisoning us… is just another day at the office.
    cadxx

    Like

  • Galacar  On November 30, 2016 at 6:35 pm

    @cadxx

    I agree withh your last sentence completely.

    Furthermore, sorry to say, but yes, it IS satanism.
    I am not fooled at all.

    The whole of our ‘societyi is being transformed, slowly but surely, into satanism.
    The forces used the most is a form of ‘black magic’ . And maybe hard to believe for some, but 9-11 was one of those ‘black magic; things.
    Most people at the ‘top’, including ‘science’ are recruited by secret societies, like the freemasons, knights of malta, and what have you,
    To enter the higher levels of this secret societies, one gets a psychopathy test. and the more one is a psychopath the higher one can climb!
    And because most secret societies don’t accept woman,some do, we have the
    ‘glass ceiling’ for woman.
    It also explains why people with more talent for a job are passed by by people
    with less talent. The latter are nearly almost member of one or more secret societies.

    As with regards to satanism, if you research the higher levels of freemasonry , you will find out that it is a gradual introduction into satanism.
    Now, we come to the crux of something about high level satanists.
    People who are into satanism are also into padeophila. these two are deeply connected.yes, sorry to say, but childeren are being sacrificied in
    satanic rituals!
    Now, one of the top physics teacher at university was a pedophile (Walter Lewin)
    That is one way how they are controlled.

    and now the cat is out of the bag, so to say, Saville worked for the royalties (satanists) and brought them children. just like Dutroux did in Belgium.
    Dutroux was a member of the satanic organisation Abrasax, located in Belgium
    So, yes, the ‘top’ people of this wolrd are very very deep into satanism.
    I am talking royalty, kings, queens, high level politicians., media tycoons.
    You get the picture.O and yes, The Roman Catholic Church is also run and
    created by these satanists.

    It is all very very sick, but well, look at our ‘society”.
    Also very very very sick!

    Like John Lennon so explicityly and clearly said here:

    This alwats remind me of the saying by Gandhi when someone asked
    him what he thought of our ‘civil society’ and Gandhi replied with:
    “That is a very good idea!:

    And I have put the quote up here about the inversions, remember?
    (Everything is upside down.etc)
    Well, that is exactly what satanist do! Invert everything!!
    Now one can have a better understanding of this quote as well.

    All difficult to swallow, I know, but true none the less.

    The forces in this world are even stranger then you and I can imagine.
    It goes even way way further than what I write here!
    The rabbit hole goes indeed very very deep.

    But let’s end with a laugh!

    I love this video/song.

    Fortunately, people are waking up to all this.

    Now we can understand better why ‘modern science’ is an oxymoron. 😉

    And for anyone who wants to deny this, it is a process.
    It is very difficult to understand it all at once.

    And of course I probably have left things out here or there.
    If so, sorry for that, but it really is one big jig-saw people.

    So much more to tell, so much more,

    Anyone can mail me if they want to.
    Of course I have not all the answers but I have studied this field
    now for more then over 15 years.

    It is scary and fascinating.

    But I hope this is clear for now.

    Namaste!

    Galacar

    Like

    • cadxx  On December 2, 2016 at 1:33 am

      Galacar says:The whole of our ‘societyi is being transformed, slowly but surely, into satanism.
      The forces used the most is a form of ‘black magic’ . And maybe hard to believe for some, but 9-11 was one of those ‘black magic; things.
      Most people at the ‘top’, including ‘science’ are recruited by secret societies, like the freemasons, knights of malta, and what have you,
      To enter the higher levels of this secret societies, one gets a psychopathy test. and the more one is a psychopath the higher one can climb!
      And because most secret societies don’t accept woman,some do, we have the
      ‘glass ceiling’ for woman.It also explains why people with more talent for a job are passed by by people with less talent. The latter are nearly almost member of one or more secret societies.

      Hi Galacar what you are saying is true, you just got the names mixed-up. Satanism was invented by the church as a way to label anything that does not fit-in with church doctrine – it’s a generic catch-all. Anything that is non-Christian-church spiritual is Satanism according to the church.

      The Malleus Maleficarum was written by priest Heinrich Kramer (c. 1430 – 1505) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Kramer
      and used for the extermination of witches and anyone else the church saw as a threat. Had I been born two of three hundred years earlier I would certainly have been burned at the stake as a disciple of the devil (Satanist). Even today the fundamentalists Christians describe other denominations of Christianity as the devils work. Satanism is about religious teaching and opposition to the church.

      Not long ago while walking my dog, I was stopped by a guy handing out tracts. We stood talking the usual conversion talk and I asked him if he ever had a spiritual experience. He said, with eyes full of fear that his mother had visited him after her death. He then ran off to get a bus shouting, “She was trying to destroy me.”

      There is no death, no sin, no Hell (unless you want to make your own) and no devil, so what does that say about Satanism?

      One of the earliest secret societies was the Invisible College, a hermetic (Alchemy) Rosicrucian organisation who wanted to keep the church out of their affairs. It was such people who gave birth to the Renaissance. Born of this enlightenment was the Freemasons originally headed by Frances Bacon who was a pupil of John Dee magician to Elizabeth I, said to be the most learned man in Europe. Frances Bacon was in debt his whole life and so I cannot see him as one of the greedy Illuminate.
      See: http://fbrt.org.uk/

      The church tried to end the Renaissance. The church would have burned, tortured and imprisoned Elizabeth I, Bacon, Dee, the Rosicrucians, the Freemasons and all the members of the Invisible College if they had had the opportunity. This is history and it should throw-up a few clues for today?
      cadxx

      Like

  • cadxx  On November 30, 2016 at 10:52 pm

    Mason said: “I wanted to leave a comment here to tell you how much I have enjoyed reading the posts on your blog. I am a huge fan of the work of Nikola Tesla, and as someone who’s view of nature has not been corrupted by the nonsense taught by the masses, reading the content on your website has been a breath of fresh air to me. I wonder if you too have any interest in the work of Tesla and might have anything relevant to post about?”

    As this thread is about the aether I think Tesla is the ideal candidate to prove the existence of aether: Both Nikola Tesla and John Warrell Keely considered sound and EM radiation to be one and the same thing, different frequencies of vibrations in the aether. Tesla did some work on the properties of aether, as I recall he said that aether was more dense than steel, based upon the idea that vibration travels faster the more dense the medium. We have had the same idea postulated for neutron stars by mainstream astronomy and the suggestion that sound travels at the speed of light in these dubious theoretical entities.

    Although Tesla and Keely were around at the same time they were not friends. Tesla asked Keely’s financier to cut off his money supply. This is the only recorded occasion I know about where Tesla was unfriendly to another…very strange. Keely is well documented at Keelynet, in books and Dale Pond has done several YouTube video’s and books on his work. Website:http://www.svpvril.com/ see bbook Free Energy Pioneer by Theo Paijams.

    Keely built two aether driven levitation devices, a disintegrator for rock mining and he built endless aether motors. Most of his devices and paperwork dissapeared at the time of his death. Dale Pond demonstrates an actual Keely motor on YouTube he obtained from a museum. Of interest: he claims that the motor is part driven by a sound resonator that works at microwave frequencies. I have a webpage on this stuff but I cant find it!

    Also involved in aether engineering is our old freind Wilhelm Reich. (The only man to have his books burned on two continents) He made it rain in the desert and built an aether motor. His work was debunked by none other than Albert Einstein who used the exact same debunkery as Shankland used on Dayton Miller who, we recall continued the work of Michelson–Morley on aether drift.

    It is perhaps no coincidence that a few days ago I was listening to an Eric Dollard (the only man to duplicate Tesla’s Wordenclyffe work) podcast where he was saying he had started to connect music and aether/electricity… (just like John Keely).

    The existence of aether was proven technologically by the century ago experimenters and all of them were given a bad time by mainstream science.

    Best regards to you all
    cadxx

    Like

  • John Davis  On December 4, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    Hey Dr. gs… Check out this video.. Double slit experiment shown to be an interference pattern via pilot wave mechanics….

    Like

  • Galacar  On December 4, 2016 at 1:54 pm

    hi cadxx

    You wrote this:

    “Hi Galacar what you are saying is true, you just got the names mixed-up. Satanism was invented by the church as a way to label anything that does not fit-in with church doctrine – it’s a generic catch-all. Anything that is non-Christian-church spiritual is Satanism according to the church.”

    With all due respect, I totally disagree with you here, and that is ok.
    Why? Because of all the victims in this day and age, of real satanism
    Yes, children are being sacrificied daily by very sick people.and yes,
    in satanic rituals.and yes, again, by roya, politicians and other ‘high pillars;
    of our ‘society”. There are plenty of witnesses of this.

    Furthermore, as far as I know, satanism wasn’t invented by the church in the way you wrote,It is much worse. The Roman Catholic Church IS satanic at its core.
    There are more clues but what about ‘drinking of the blood”, and ‘eating my flesh”. That is cannabalism, which is a part of deep satanism.
    How about a man hanging and bleeding on a crucifix?
    Yes, I am saying the pope is into sacrificing kids for real!
    I know how bizarre it all sounds.I really know.
    And do you think the misuse of children by the church is a conicidence?
    far far far from it? As A I have written before, pedophilia os a deep part
    of satanism.
    But truth is truth.and the Roman Church are a bunch of liars!
    (e.g. they are agains birth control, but have stocks in condom factories,
    how is that for hypocrasy?)

    And talking about truth. don’t forget our ‘history’ isn’t the real history.
    It is nearly all fake!

    Now, having a different opinion is no problem for me,
    But this is mine.

    (btw this writing might look off topic for a lot of people here, but it really
    is and important and also explains why we are lied to by ‘science’, ‘science’, like religion, is a control tool for satanists at the top of this world, satanists have no problem lying through their teeth, they liteally do this for a living!, lying that is!)

    Namaste!

    Galacar

    Like

  • cadxx  On December 4, 2016 at 7:41 pm

    So, instead of billiard balls we have droplets; the scientific obsession with solid particles (it’s all about balls) raises its head once more. I don’t believe in Santa Clause and I don’t believe in particles. All of the experiments can be made to give the same results if one assumes fields (waves) only. The droplet is unimportant apart from its making of waves. The electron is unimportant because electricity flows in fields outside of the conductor. The electron does even less than the droplet. But science insists on playing with it’s balls rather than doing real, useful science that can be used for technology and thereby useful to it’s fellow man.

    I want to challenge any scientist out there to give me an example of a technology that is as a direct result of modern physics theory in the past thirty years? Something we can buy in the shops. I can’t find a single one! Who has the balls?
    cadxx

    Like

    • John Davis  On December 5, 2016 at 10:50 pm

      Hey Cadxx, I think the video is important because people have problems visualizing wave mechanic interference in the double slit experiment. This is a very good visual aid. I would agree that the droplet could easily be replaced with an excited field and generate the same results. Either way, you dispense with the illogical ideas of relativity, uncertainty, locality collapse, etc.

      Like

  • Galacar  On December 4, 2016 at 10:11 pm

    Hi cadxx

    You wrote:

    “I want to challenge any scientist out there to give me an example of a technology that is as a direct result of modern physics theory in the past thirty years? Something we can buy in the shops. I can’t find a single one! Who has the balls?
    cadxx”

    I will bet you win! lol

    As you know I also have studied this field in depth and as I have written
    numerous times on this site is that there is nothing, because of ‘modern physics’
    Nothing, zilch, nada, zero
    Even the computer was in concept invented long long before ‘moden physics”.
    So we can split the money, right!? 😉

    And this is so with everything at the moment.
    This planet is filled to the top with lies.
    A good way to realize this, is to see that our planet is kind of hijacked,
    thousends of years ago. And the people who had done that wanted to
    keep us in the dark and using us for slave labour!

    Just look around to see how true this is.

    Namaste!

    Galacar!

    Like

  • cadxx  On December 5, 2016 at 6:26 pm

    Hi Galacar
    The money is yours, 50/50.
    Thanks for the support.

    I’ve done this in the past and they usually start with the tired and very sad ‘No atomic bomb without Einstein’. Well I’ve traced E=MC2 back to Maxwell and Henri Poincaré and at least half a dozen more names before Einstein. And then I found recent documented evidence that the NAZI’s had a bomb during WWII. This was at the time Einstein was kicked out of Germany and when all Jewish science was banned (verboten).

    Then we have the old faithful – the GPS clock that should give different times for those in different locations, but does not. The clock should continuously update but stays the same after launch. Van Flandern did some work on this and his last word on the subject was that GPS had blown-off Einstein. Before the first GPS was launched the ‘expert opinion’ was split between ‘It will not work because of relativity and it will work for the same reason. This is called ‘hedging your bets’ so that someone has to be right.
    After more than a hundred years the experts still don’t understand relativity.

    The transistor: and to my surprise they tell me it’s thanks to quantum mechanics. I have evidence that shipboard wireless operators were using transistors on Marconi equipment in the first decade of the 1900’s. Transistors have been around as long as radio.

    The problem seems to be that scientists know nothing about science history.

    Kind regards to all
    cadxx

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s