Does physics have to be "cold"?
c.h.thompson
>Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
>message news:KoPl8.19453$DE4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>> Shouldn't you at least and *at last* remove that Demeo crackpot with
>> his cloudbusters and orgone accumulator nonsense from your page?
>> And better take the drool about the Miller paper along with it:
Sounds like Mr. Moortel is a card-carrying member of CSICOP.
You can surely read all sorts of bad things about Reich, and about me also,
from the organized "skeptics", but they willfully disinform and even
outright lie on the entire subject, and certainly never have attempted a
single experiment themselves. And, there are no small number of
half-informed mystics running about making big unsupported claims about
Reich. In this regard, the internet is a prime source of baloney and
disinformation on the subject, though my own web site keeps things clear
and straight (http://www.orgonelab.org). The water is muddy, for sure, and
so it takes some effort to see through the murk created by both the
CSICOP-disinformers, and the uneducated enthusiasts. One could forgive the
latter group, but the disinformers are cut-throat liars, some of whom are
old-line Stalinists who jumped for joy when Reich's books were being
burned, both in Europe in the 1930s and in the USA in the 1950s.
In the last Century, the local farm-hand jumping off the barn roof with
boards strapped to his arms was a handy "reason" for the academic snob to
condemn the airplane. I recall Scientific American, and even the editor of
the Dayton Ohio newspaper (where the Wright Brothers routinely tested and
flew their apparatus just outside of town), were roundly condemning the
Wright brothers as frauds and hoaxters, without ever examining the subject,
in harsh language -- what were your words, Mr. Moortel? -- "crackpot
nonsense", "drool", etc. Same thing happened to Goddard and his rocket,
here in the USA. And even worse, to Reich. It is a long list, we could
construct from the history of science, of professionally-destroyed and even
murdered scientists who made the "wrong" discovery. With Reich, however,
the stakes are extremely high, as even the airplane and rocket could be
incorporated into the physical theory of their day. Reich's discovery
cannot, and like Miller's work on ether-drift, demands a substantial
re-think. Most of the older theory simply will not stand, and gets tossed
overboard. Worse, Reich's work is experimentally supported, and not merely
some speculative theory-making, which is why he continues to stir up such
irrational opposition and hatred, nearly 50 years after being murdered and
having his books burned. Miller may be unknown, but Reich is vicerally
hated by his critics. Why? Genuine cranks and crackpots do not stirr up
such outrage.
Mr. Moortel: I've undertaken numerous experiments on the subject of Reich's
claims, even the more outrageous ones like cloudbusting*, and got positive
results which were published, and I know about more than a hundred
experiments by other trained scientists who have likewise got positive
results, including on the more "outrageous" aspects of Reich's work.** If
you have some experimental evidence to support your wildly insulting
"opinion", I'd like to know about it -- can you cite me something which
presents negative results, on any of his experimental claims? Or is your
view based upon the slanders of the CSICOP-skeptics? Otherwise, please
don't render public opinions on things you don't know anything of fact
about. This kind of pestilent "insult-first, ask questions later" is too
typical of mainstream science, physics especially (which has taken on the
mantle of a real priesthood) and underlies the current atmosphere of
censorship and suppression.
Caroline, should I be on this email list? If people are going to slander
my work behind my back, I should at least have the opportunity to set them
straight. If this was only a one-time remark, then I'm satisfied to simply
have this posted off to the group in question. People can access and read
my materials, if they wish, and judge for themselves. As I've said before,
the work of Miller and of Reich are quite independent of each other, and do
not require each other's support in any manner. The merging of their works
is entirely my own doing, and for that I'll take all the credit, or the
blame. My year of research into Miller's work was prompted, in large
measure, due to the great similarities of the described properties of ether
and ether-drift as given by Miller (http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm) to
the described properties of cosmic mass-free orgone energy, as given by
Reich. Upon digging deep, I discovered there never was any decent
"critique" of Miller by the Shankland debunking team. So, Miller is the
clear winner and expert on ether-drift that everyone should be citing. My
integration paper "Reconciling Miller's Ether-Drift with Reich's Dynamic
Orgone" will appear in "Heretic's Notebook (Pulse of the Planet #5)",
available in about a month. http://www.orgonelab.org/Pulse5.htm
Regards,
James DeMeo
PS. Great quote about Maxim, Caroline.
* J. DeMeo: "Preliminary Analysis of Changes in Kansas Weather Coincidental
to Experimental Operations with a Reich Cloudbuster", Graduate Thesis,
Geography-Meteorology Department, University of Kansas, Lawrence, 1979
(published by Natural Energy Works, 1985 -
http://www.orgonelab.org/naturalenergy.htm); J. DeMeo & R. Morris:
"Preliminary Report on a Cloudbusting Experiment in the Southeastern
Drought Zone, August 1986", Southeastern Drought Symposium
Proceedings, March 4-5, 1987, South Carolina State Climatology Office
Publication G-30, Columbia, SC, 1987; J. DeMeo, "Cloudbusting: Growing
Evidence for a New Method of Ending Drought and Greening Deserts",
Newsletter, American Institute of Biomedical Climatology, Sept. 1996, #20,
p.1-4 (http://www.orgonelab.org/AIBC.htm); J. DeMeo: "Green Sea Eritrea: A
Five-Year Cloudbusting Experiment in the SE Sahel Zone of Africa", in Pulse
of the Planet #5, 2002 (http://www.orgonelab.org/xpulse.htm).
** "Bibliography on Orgone Biophysics: 1935-1986", by J. DeMeo, Natural
Energy, 1986.
http://www.orgonelab.org/xdemeo.htm
Also see:
http://www.orgonelab.org/demeopubs.htm
p50: Stephanie Pain, "War and Peace": Hiram Maxim invented the machine gun
(adopted by the army in 1889) and also, for his personal use, a patent
inhaler (his "Pipe of Peace") that cured bronchitis symptoms in the London
smog. His friends were worried that this invention could damage his
standing as a scientist. As he said,
"It is a very creditable thing to invent a killing machine, and nothing less
than a disgrace to invent an apparatus to prevent human suffering."
Dirk Van de moortel
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message news:3c9da...@news2.vip.uk.com...
> James DeMeo <de...@mind.net> has asked me to forward the following:
As I suspected Caroline and James seem to know each it other.
I knew it. The link on your site is clearly advertising it.
> >Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> >message news:KoPl8.19453$DE4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
> >> Shouldn't you at least and *at last* remove that Demeo crackpot with
> >> his cloudbusters and orgone accumulator nonsense from your page?
> >> And better take the drool about the Miller paper along with it:
>
> Sounds like Mr. Moortel is a card-carrying member of CSICOP.
Sounds wrong. Never heard of a thing like CSICOP, but I might
check it out sometime.
I once had a long argument with an anonymo calling himself "ripzone23"
about Miller and DeMeo. I'm not going to repeat anything, since it's
all here in the thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=Mt207.11411%24YS5....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
Since the idea of the argument was to wipe the floor with DeMeo,
I took great care not to use any unknown source.
So nothing I ever wrote in this conext is "based upon the slanders of
the CSICOP-skeptics". I wasn't even aware of their existence, but
like I said, I'll check it out.
Mr. DeMeo writes books:
http://www.minimum.com/p7/engine/book.asp?n=1921#
No further comment.
[remainder of DeMeo's pathetic commercial snipped]
Dirk Vdm
Simon Clark
> "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message
> news:3c9da...@news2.vip.uk.com...
[...]
>> Sounds like Mr. Moortel is a card-carrying member of CSICOP.
>
> Sounds wrong. Never heard of a thing like CSICOP, but I might
> check it out sometime.
CSICOP = Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the
Paranormal:
They promote science and condemn pseudo-science; so I can see why Thompson
wouldn't like them very much. They also publish Skeptical Inquirer
magazine. Although I am not a card-carrying member, I wholeheartedly
endorse this service and/or product.
--
Simon Clark
Dirk Van de moortel
"Simon Clark" <evil...@clarksj.fNsOneSt.cPo.AukM> wrote in message news:1916283.L...@evilsrianconspiracy.org...
Thanks, Google's first hit already pointed me to the site. Interesting.
Funny, when I saw the post, CSICOP seemed to be some kind of
dirty word. It must be a *very* dirty word to this kind of people.
By the way, I got DeMeo's post entirely in my hotmailbox.
It was adressed directly to me. Caroline was only in the cc-list,
but the mail started with "Dear Caroline, please forward to the
egroup from which this originated".
He could at least have started with "Annoying Dirk, please...."
Header of the mail:
X-Sender: de...@mail.mind.net
Message-Id: <l03130301b8c29897069d@[206.151.158.198]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 12:40:31 -0800
To: <dirkvand...@hot-nospam-mail.com> [added -nospam-]
From: James DeMeo <de...@mind.net>
Subject: Re: Does physics have to be "cold"?
Cc: Caroline...@mind.net
Apparently they both are on mind.net. I don't know if that's
significant.
Anyway, more on DeMeo on
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&querytime=y64xwB&q=%22demeo%40mind%2Enet%22
Dirk Vdm
Simon Clark
> Thanks, Google's first hit already pointed me to the site. Interesting.
> Funny, when I saw the post, CSICOP seemed to be some kind of
> dirty word. It must be a *very* dirty word to this kind of people.
Also note that Carl Sagan was one of the founding members.
--
Simon Clark
Dirk Van de moortel
"Simon Clark" <evil...@clarksj.fNsOneSt.cPo.AukM> wrote in message news:2060269.Y...@evilsrianconspiracy.org...
Ha, so I *should* have known about it. I have read his "Cosmos",
"Broca's Brain" and "The Demon-haunted World", and indeed
CSICOP is mentioned in the index of the latter. I'll have to read
it again sometime when I have worked my way through that 60 cm
pile waiting to be read... The stack is growing faster than I can
handle it... HELP!
Dirk Vdm
Simon Clark
> "Simon Clark" <evil...@clarksj.fNsOneSt.cPo.AukM> wrote:
[re: CSICOP]
>> Also note that Carl Sagan was one of the founding members.
>
> Ha, so I *should* have known about it. I have read his "Cosmos",
> "Broca's Brain" and "The Demon-haunted World", and indeed
> CSICOP is mentioned in the index of the latter.
Current members also include: Richard Dawkins, Murray Gell-Mann, Stephen
Jay Gould, and Steven Weinberg.
--
Simon Clark
George Jones
Sagan also wrote a wonderful book about these kinds of things. It is
very aptly titled "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle In the
Dark."
Regards,
George
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
pile:-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
c.h.thompson
> I once had a long argument with an anonymo calling himself "ripzone23"
> about Miller and DeMeo. I'm not going to repeat anything, since it's
> all here in the thread:
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=Mt207.11411%24YS5.1124484@afrodite
.telenet-ops.be
> Since the idea of the argument was to wipe the floor with DeMeo,
> I took great care not to use any unknown source.
I can find no sign of you knowing anything at all on the subject, beyond the
propaganda spread by Einstein's followers. Please read Miller's 1933 report
AND Shankland's 1955 one, and compare for scientific content! For detailed
refs see my site, from http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/History/forgotten.htm or
DeMeo's at http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Papers/Miller40.htm .
At the time of your argument with "ripzone23" (last year) it seems that
DeMeo was just about the only person to be contributing on the Internet re
Dayton Miller's work. There were in fact other scientists well aware of it,
notably Jean-Pierre Vigier and Maurice Allais, who had come across it
totally independently. See
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/Science.htm .
You said, among a number of irrelvancies:
[ripzone23]
> I've seen multiple references to this as being untrue. That in fact they
> did find a very small discrepancy.
[DVdm]
I've seen some too. On Caroline Thompson's website and a few others
that pointed back to http://www.orgonelab.org. Can you give me some
references that don't?
I'd be really interested.
CHT:
You will have to look up papers from the library, I fear. All this was
quite some time before the invention of the computer!
I think you will find something in:
Michelson, A A et al, "Conference on the Michelson-Morley Experiment",
Astrophysical Journal 68, 341 (1928)
It was at this conference that Miller's results were discussed by Michelson,
Hendrik Lorentz and others. Einstein was not there -- it was before he went
to the States. Shankland was probably still at school (I don't know when he
was born, but he was an assistant of Miller's in 1933 when he was finalising
his main report.)
You continued:
[DVdm]
> >Poor Miller couldn't believe this and desperately continued
> >looking for his ether. His paper got thoroughly debunked,
> >and no one ever talked about Miller again. Try google with
> >"dayton miller", together with the words ether or aether:
> >a handful of hits, mostly referring to the narcotic substance
> >also known as ether or aether. Check it. I am not going to
> >argue about his experiments. It has been done.
[ripzone23]
> By the Shankland, et. al. paper, or others? Do those others
> just reaffirm the Shankland, et. al. paper or have they done
> their own analysis of the experimental data?
[DVdm]
I don't know of any others.
[CHT]
As we thought, it is ONLY Shankland who"debunked" Miller's work ...
[DVdm]
> Apparently Shankland did a good job, because only the
> Orgonics muttered about it. And they have to because
> they make a living out of it.
[CHT]
Curious that you should say that, Dirk! I have heard it said that Shankland
built his career around his relationship with Einstein.
Einstein was duly grateful for Shankland's help in ridding him of this
scurvy knave [Shakespeare]. He wrote his a nice letter, quoted in:
Shankland, R S, "Michelson's Role in the Development of Relativity", Applied
Optics 12 (10) 2280-87 (1973):
August 31, 1954:
"Dear Dr Shankland
I thank you very much for sending me your careful study about the Miller
experiments. Those experiments, conducted with so much care, merit, of
course, a very careful statistical investigation. This is more so as the
existence of a not trivial positive effect would affect very deeply the
fundament of theoretical physics as it is presently accepted.
You have shown convincingly that the observed effect is outside the range of
accidental deviations and must, therefore, have a systematic cause. You
made it quite probable that this systematic cause has nothing to do with the
"ether-wind", but has to do with differences of temperature of the air
traversed by the two light bundles which produced the bands of interference.
Such an effect is indeed practically inevitable if the walls of the
laboratory room have a not negligible difference in temperature.
It is one of the cases where the systematic errors are increasing quickly
with the dimension of the apparatus.
Congratulating you and your colleagues on your valuable contribution to our
knowledge, I am
With kind regards,
A. Einstein"
Einstein prefers to believe that the systematic effect is due to
temperature, but Miller had done subsidiary experiments that ruled this
possibility out. With only Shankland's word for it (Miller having died in
1941, I think), the myth took on and flourished.
Caroline
--
c.h.th...@pgen.net
http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
Dirk Van de moortel
<me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:HMqn8.11$s4....@news.uchicago.edu...
> In article <3C9E2B80...@yahoo.com>, George Jones <george_l...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >Simon Clark wrote:
> >
> >> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >>
> >> > Thanks, Google's first hit already pointed me to the site. Interesting.
> >> > Funny, when I saw the post, CSICOP seemed to be some kind of
> >> > dirty word. It must be a *very* dirty word to this kind of people.
> >>
> >> Also note that Carl Sagan was one of the founding members.
> >
> >Sagan also wrote a wonderful book about these kinds of things. It is
> >very aptly titled "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle In the
> >Dark."
> >
> Yes, strongly recommended. Poor Dirk, that's another 5cm to your
> pile:-)
I have read it about 4 years ago. It needs a refresh.
[ That last part of Karen Armstrong's Crusades is on top of the
pile -- scheduled for next week ;-) ]
Dirk Vdm
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
><me...@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:HMqn8.11$s4....@news.uchicago.edu...
>> >
>> >Sagan also wrote a wonderful book about these kinds of things. It is
>> >very aptly titled "The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle In the
>> >Dark."
>> >
>> Yes, strongly recommended. Poor Dirk, that's another 5cm to your
>> pile:-)
>
>[ That last part of Karen Armstrong's Crusades is on top of the
> pile -- scheduled for next week ;-) ]
Good going, keep it up.
Dirk Van de moortel
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message news:3c9e3...@news1.vip.uk.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:fGin8.28224$DE4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
> > I once had a long argument with an anonymo calling himself "ripzone23"
> > about Miller and DeMeo. I'm not going to repeat anything, since it's
> > all here in the thread:
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=Mt207.11411%24YS5.1124484@afrodite
> .telenet-ops.be
> > Since the idea of the argument was to wipe the floor with DeMeo,
> > I took great care not to use any unknown source.
>
> I can find no sign of you knowing anything at all on the subject,
Although I happen to know something on the subject, I'm not at
all interested in it. The subject is DeMeo and how to wipe the floor
with him. The only form of knowledge one needs to do that, is to
know how to use a good search engine.
Dirk Vdm
James DeMeo
developed following her informing persons on these news groups about my investigations into
the work of the late Dayton Miller. For the record, my paper on this subject is posted to:
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
A series of rather insulting comments, personal attacks and other lies were posted after Ms.
Thompson's efforts, mostly from Mr. Dirk Van De Moortel. I thank her for posting out a prior
reply of mine, as I did not expect to log on for any lengthy reply. However, it seems the
attacks and slanders against my person are more extensive then previously known, and as I
would not expect Ms. Thompson to further defend my work, I will do so now, in person.
Firstly, I have never met Ms. Thompson, and aside from our mutual interest in ether-theory,
and specifically the work of Dayton Miller, we have no connections. I regard her as a
top-notch scholar, an original thinker who has a lot of important things to say, and would
respect the input of any genuine scholar, critic or supporter, if such was presented in a
genuine manner. But she is no "follower" of either me or of Reich, nor would I wish her or
anyone else to be.
Regarding Miller and Reich, as I have said before, there is no connections between them
whatsosever, aside from some theoretical linkages for which I take all the responsibility. In
my opinion, which is based upon a considerable personal evaluation, the work of both Miller
and Reich can stand quite well on their own, without reference to the other. But I do believe
also, there is a connection between Miller's ether, and Reich's orgone.
Having said this, I now wish to address some of the more outrageous statements which have been
made in various postings to these groups over the last several weeks. Unfortunately, as most
of the readers on this news group will know, it takes more space to rebut some outrageous
statement than is required to make the original statement:
From Mr. Moortel:
> >> >When a man comes to you with a machine that cures all
> >> >diseases in one blow and makes you live for at least 200 years,
> >> >do you buy it? No.
FACT: Reich never claimed the orgone accumulator would "cure all diseases in one blow", or
anything similar. This was claimed by his attackers who were not particularly interested in
facts, and who put the words into his mouth as a method for smashing him down. It is a
typical straw-man argument, and is baseless. Of course, nobody claimed the accumulator would
"make you live for at least 200 years". This is exaggerated rubbish from Mr. Moortel.
> >> >And then when this same man writes an article that amounts to:
> >> > "I sell Orogonic Devices. Physicists call me a fraud.
> >> > But physics itself is a fraud. Look: they say there is no ether.
> >> > There *must* be an ether. My Orogonic Devices need it.
> >> > It's all over my books. I can *prove* that there is an ether.
> >> > How? Well, there was a Mr. Miller who proved it. And no
> >> > one believes him. QED"
For the record, I do not, and never have sold orgone devices, and make my living as an author,
researcher (with my own private institute), lecturer and educator. I do have a book-selling
and publishing company which has been in operation since 1986, and have written a book on the
orgone accumulator which gives factual and precise information about it, including
construction plans. My published books can be reviewed and ordered from:
http://www.orgonelab.org/xdemeo.htm
and my publications listing, with some abstracts, are given at:
http://www.orgonelab.org/demeopub.htm
> >Poor Miller couldn't believe this and desperately continued looking for his
> >ether. His paper got thoroughly debunked, and no one ever talked about Miller
> >again. Try google with "dayton miller", together with the words ether or aether:
> >a handful of hits, mostly referring to the narcotic substance also known as ether
> >or aether. Check it. I am not going to argue about his experiments. It has been
> >done.
A serious scholar will use internet materials with great caution, given the abundance of
unfactual and inaccurate material. For controversial subjects, this becomes doubly so. One
could not, for example, take any bit of rubbish from the internet which claimed to refute
Einstein and just throw it out there and expect to be taken seriously. It has to be based
upon some kind of fact, and then you have to anticipate genuine rebuttals, etc. The same is
true with respect to Reich's work. There's just too much unfactual stuff on internet claiming
to be based upon "Reich's work".
As demonstrated in my paper, Miller was never "thoroughly debunked", and retained the respect
of his associates and even of Michelson up to the very end of that historical period. To
claim otherwise is to misrepresent the facts. Shankland was a political glad-hander who had
no serious scientific career of his own, whose very first experimental effort was a negative
result on typical light-diffraction experiments considered a cornerstone for modern physics.
R.S. Shankland, An Apparent Failure of the Photon Theory of Scattering, Physical Review,
Vol.49, Jan 1936, p.8-13.
One of the senior physicists I met with at Case-Western declared that "Shanklands career got
off to a bad start" in reference to this experiment. It suggests he was early-on a critic of
mainstream theories -- maybe even a supporter of ether-theory and of Miller, who was at that
time the Chairman of the Case Physics Department. Later, after Miller died, Shankland became
the Chair at Case Physics Department, and after some years of idle time, with no significant
research or publications of his own, Shankland finally settled into a series of interviews
with Einstein, and then finally to lead the incompetent and misrepresented de-bunking effort
against Miller. If you read the sections of my paper, where I review what the Shankland team
attempted to do with respect to Miller's work, it should be clear that they willfully avoided
the most obvious methods for reviewing Miller's data, and instead nit-picked here and there,
to develop a conclusion not supported by their own analysis.
After this was done, Miller was burried deep, and Shankland's career went quite well. He got
more interviews with Einstein which were widely published in the "best" journals, and in them
all the misrepresentations of science history were repeated such that today, the mythology of
"no ether drift" is a catechism, and only emotional alarm is created if you don't want to join
in with the chant.
>Apparently Shankland did a good job, because
only the Orgonics muttered about it. And they have to because they make
a living out of it.
More insults and insinuations. Unless you've inherited a fortune, or science is only a hobby,
we all "make a living" from our work. But I do not sell orgone accumulators. Got that
straight?
> >Mr. Willhelm Reich had discovered Orgonic Energy and invented the
> >Orgonic Accumulator. And this device needed the ether to function. And
> >it needed buyers.
> >Alas! There seemed to be no Ether, and Miller's article was the only one
> >available. So what do we do? Simple: We write an article about how badly
> >treated poor Miller was.
> >Who can write this article? Ha! Let's take James DeMeo who is a prominent
> >member of the American College of Orgonomy (ACO), and is a Sociologist.
> >He can write the paper to "defend" Miller. And his precious ether of
> course.
For the record, Dr. Reich did not appear to know about Miller, and never cited Miller's work
in any of his publications. He never asserted that the orgone accumulator "needed the ether
to function", and believed his discovery of the orgone was genuine enough to explain the
unusual physical and biological phenomena observed inside it. He did, as I also do, believe
the orgone and ether shared many properties, and wrote that physics had "prematurely discarded
a useful theory". You can read what Reich actually wrote in "Ether, God and Devil / Cosmic
Superimposition", a companion book set published by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, NY c.1980s.
Also, for the record: I never was a member of the American College of Orgonomy. But neither
would I be embarrased to be a member. I was, years ago, a research associate of the ACO, and
studied with some of their senior members who knew a lot about Reich, and who studied with
Reich in the 50s. I published many articles in their Journal of Orgonomy over the last 30
years. My classical training was in the Earth and Environmental Sciences, Physical Geography
and such, with a BS in Environmental Science and a doctorate in Geography, and not in
Sociology. I taught courses in Physical Geography, Earth Science, Natural Resources,
Renewable Energy, Climatology, and World Geography, etc., at four different major US
universities, until going my own way in 1988 with my own institute. Got that straight, Mr.
Moortel?
What are your credentials, training and experience, Mr. Moortel?
> >Wilhelm Reich was a criminal: he got convicted in 1956 by a jury and got two
> >years. He died in jail and hence became a martyr. Obviously he had some fans
> >and a daughter Eva. And an Ellsworth Baker. And a James DeMeo. And some
> >more psychiatrists. So they continued his work and created the ACO.
To define Reich as a "criminal" is to fully accept as legitimate the actions of the Food and
Drug Administration, Courts and Prosecution of that case. Let's take a look at what Mr.
Moortel is supporting:
In the 1940s and 50s, Reich's detractors (many of whom had followed him from Germany to the
USA, and who hated his guts for his writings which described the Nazis and Stalinists as
comparably anti-freedom) wrote various smear articles in the popular press, which were then
repeated verbatim in various medical journals. Reich's lawyer advised not to sue, and so
Reich simply wrote "letters of rebuttal", which were never printed anywhere to my knowledge.
Today, we know that his lawyer, Arthur Hayes, was a good personal friend with one of the
primary authors of the smear-attacks, Mildred Brady. If Reich had known, he would have gone
ballistic, and fired his lawyer, and found another one to sue his detractors for libel. So
for starters, he got very bad legal advice.
The smear articles, in the various medical journals, stimulated the Food and Drug
Administration to launch an "investigation" into Reich's work. The articles carried many
outrageous lies, and the FDA apparently took them all at face value. Reich initially
cooperated with the FDA when they came around to ask questions -- then he learned the Brady
articles were in the background, and ceased cooperation. The FDA eventually filed for an
injunction against Reich, claiming that the "orgone energy does not exist", and thereby
declaring the orgone accumulators as "misbranded merchandise", and all books carrying the word
"orgone" as "advertising literature" which they wanted destroyed and banned from future
interestate commerce. Reich was outraged, and as a recent immigrant to the USA who took our
Constitution very seriously, he wrote a legally-binding "Response" to the Judge, declaring he
would not allow himself to be dragged into court "to become a defendant in matters of natural
science", and allow his critics to destroy his decades of careful research by legal tactics
when they could not do so in the arena of natural scientific criticism. One can say Reich was
naive, or that he should have used a different legal tactic, but most scientific people will
understand the principles which he argued were important. Nevertheless, the judge chose to
interpret the written Response document as equal to "no response", and gave the FDA virtually
everything they asked for. The FDA was granted permission to destroy all the orgone
accumulators, and books carrying the word orgone, while Reich was ordered to stop writing and
speaking about orgone. In fact, the FDA raided Reich's laboratory in rural Rangeley Maine,
put much of his research equipment to the axe (Reich is said to have carried out a microscope,
and provocatively shouted at them "Here, you forgot to destroy this as well!"), while tons of
books were carted off to incinerators. This included his classic books "Character Analysis",
"Mass Psychology of Facism", "Sexual Revolution", "People in Trouble", and "Function of the
Orgasm" in which the forbidden word "orgone" appeared only in the preface.
Some years later, Reich wrote to the FDA saying he was going to resume speaking, writing and
publishing books, as he could not believe the courts would so eggregiously ignore the First
Amendment. The FDA did not react. However, a short time later, when Reich was undertaking
field research (with the cloudbuster) in Arizona, an assistant moved a truckload of books and
orgone accumulators from a storage location in Rangeley Maine (where Reich lived, and where
the Wilhelm Reich Museum now stands), to a storage location in New York City. That triggered
a Contempt of Court charge, even though Reich knew nothing about it, and had not approved it.
He and the assistant were so charged, and appealed all the way to the US Supreme court. By
that time, however, the courts did not care about the original claims which brought the
injunction, only the narrow issue of whether the injunction had been violated or not. Many
unethical breaches occurred, but the bottom line was that all the US courts, from the district
court in Maine to the US Supreme Court, acknowledged that book-burning was OK, and that it was
OK for the FDA to basically ignore the First Amendment.
Reich went to prison with a 2-year sentence. His assistant got 1 year. Reich died after 6
months in prison, two weeks prior to his parole date -- his daughter and wife believed he had
been poisoned, given his condition just prior to death. The assistant was released shortly
thereafter, and committed suicide. Reich's books continued to be burned by the FDA, even
after his death in 1963. Only years later, when Farrar, Straus and Giroux publishers were
offered his books, did the FDA back down. Quite a scandalous scene, made all the more
Orwellian by the hordes of academic and journalistic cheerleaders on the sidelines,
celebrating the bonfire, claiming the First Amendment as their own personal property -- with
others stood by in mute silence, afraid that they might be next. Books which previously had
been burned by Hitler's and Stalin's henchmen in the 1930s were thereby burned in the USA,
with full approval of the courts. My small "Orgone Accumulator Handbook", written for the
intelligent layperson, goes into this matter in more detail, and provides various citations to
the documentary record. You can get it from Amazon.com, or from:
http://www.orgonelab.org/xdemeo.htm
If anyone wants to associate themself with all of that, to defend that and claim that Reich
was the "criminal", while the FDA, academics, "skeptic" smear authors and lawyers and courts
have their hands clean, and were genuine scientific people with clear and clean motivations,
then I say: those people are closeted fascists and liars who do not care a bit about anybody's
freedom, and should be watched very closely, and not be trusted for anything they do or say.
Reich fought against that deceptive Stalinistic behavior in the 30s, which is why the Nazis
and Stalinists both wanted to kill him, and so I fight against the same group of philosophical
thugs who today want all scientific heretics cleansed from the halls of science. If you read
Reich's Mass Psychology, you get an amazing insight into the character structure of the
book-burners.
Which is why they hate Reich's guts. Even if you strongly disagree with everything Reich
claimed, a genuine scientific person and lover of freedom and democracy should be appalled at
what occurred in the Reich legal case, and what the FDA has in general been doing over the
last 50 years or more, in an overt war against all kinds of alternative medicine, where many
books have been banned and burned, and many pioneering physicians jailed or defrocked, while
the real quacks go on with their unscientific butchery in the hospitals, with only a few
notable dissenters in mainstream science and medicine.
This is why I claim, without hesitation, that the Reich legal case holds far more
significance for the sciences than the better-known Scopes monkey-trial. As a consequence of
allowing the Reich tragedy to stand, the US Supreme Court has recently ruled that scientific
evidence can be pre-screened as to its "scientific credibility" and admissibility into court
as evidence, by anonymous panels of orthodox scientists, selected with the help of the
National Academy. So today, even if Reich had tried to defend his scientific discoveries in
court, a panel of likely-prejudiced orthodox scientists, who know all of the lies and
misinformation, but few of the facts, would have looked it over the research evidence in
private, and probably condemned it, and then the judge would have said "defend yourself Dr.
Reich, but none of your research papers or those of your associates are admissible as
evidence". All who agree with this way of doing "scientific research", quickly raise your
right hand into a 45-degree salute!
>What he does himself, is character suicide.
>You cannot make a decision against someone who sells Orgonic
>Accumulators?
>Have you actually *read* what this machine is supposed to do?
>Actually read, with your eyes?
>You cannot make a decision about someone who writes at the
>bottom of an article on his CloudBusters:
>
> "Building Upon the Discoveries of the Internationally
> Recognized Natural Scientist, Wilhelm Reich, M.D."
>
>Wilhelm reich was a convicted *criminal*. A crook.
>Got two years of prison for bringing peoples lives in danger.
>Look it up. You know how to.
>This not a personal attack. It is a fact.
I have no hesitation to defend the facts in this matter, or the results of my own experimental
work. About that, I am most confident. And I am equally confident that every rational
scientific person who takes the time to examine the facts, even if they disagree with my
conclusions, will at least come to appreciate that this is no fabricated quackery or hoax, and
that the phenomena being observed are very real and tangible. In fact, I give seminars each
year on these subjects:
http://www.orgonelab.org/events.htm
Mr. Moortel, since you are specifically skeptical about the orgone accumulator, I offer the
following for consideration: In 1991 the Ministry of Science at Niedersachsischen, Federal
Republic of Germany, made a compendium of practical and effective Natural Healing Methods, as
a recommendation to the European Union for legalization and harmonization of medical practices
across Europe. The fifth volume of this compendium included a section on "energetic
medicine", which presented three recommended methods of effective treatment. They were: 1)
Chinese acupuncture, 2) homeopathic medicine, and 3) Orgone Accumulator therapy. Most people
in the USA know about the first two methods, and perhaps occasionally use them with some
relief. The third, only a few know about, due to the FDA book-burning and ongoing war of
disinformation by the organized "skeptics". After WW-II, a lot of young German students
wanted to know more about Wilhelm Reich, who was widely known as one of the few persons in
Freud's inner circle to openly fight against the Nazis. His "Mass Psychology of Fascism" was
more widely read there, than here (unfortunately). Many younger medical students began
exploring natural healing methods, which today are a part of mainstream medical training in
Germany, and today, orgone accumulators are employed in clinics across Germany and other parts
of the EU. The orgone accumulator works, exactly as stated by Dr. Reich (but not as a "cure
all"), though certainly the aggressive "skeptics" have tried to smash down all of these
natural healing methods. I would additionally point to the following double-blind controlled
studies (as well as to the FRG report mentioned above):
Stefan Muschenich & Ranier Gebauer, "The (Psycho-) Physiological Effects of the Reich Orgone
Accumulator", Dissertation, University of Marburg, West Germany, 1986. Also see: "Der
Gesundheitsbegriff im Werk des Arztes Wilhelm Reich (The Concept of Health in the Works of Dr.
Wilhelm Reich)", by Stefan Müschenich, Doktorarbeit am Fachbereich Humanmedizin der
Philipps-Universität Marburg, Verlag Görich & Weiershäuser, Marburg 1995.
Guenter Hebenstreit: "Der Orgonakkumulator nach Wilhelm Reich - Eine experimentelle
Untersuchung zur Spannungs-Ladungs-Formel" Diplomarbeit zur Erlangung des Magistergrades der
Philosophie an der Grund- und Integrativwissenschaftlichen Fakultaet der Universitaet Wien,
Wien, Austria, 1995.
Heiko Lassek: "Vegeto-/Orgontherapie nach Dr. Wilhelm Reich", in Dokumentation der besonderen
Therapierichtungen und naturlichen Heilweisen in Europa, Nr.5, Zentrum zur Dokumentation fur
Naturheilverfahren, Im Auftrag des Niedersachsischen Ministeriums fur Wirtschaft, Technologie
und Verkehr vom ZDN erstellt und vom FFB herausgegeben, Forschungsinstitut Freie Berufe, 1991,
S.1213-1237.
These, then, are the kinds of evidence one should consult to make an opinion about the orgone
accumulator -- in addition to the original reports by Reich and his associates. Double-blind
and controlled studies, yielding positive effects exactly as stated in Reich's original
journals and publications. I honestly don't know what more is necessary.
Again, Mr. Moortel, you are circulating lies and half-truths. I strongly suggest, you
restrain your criticisms to things you are sure about, and have knowledge about. As further
reference material, I recommend the following:
"Wilhelm Reich Versus the USA" by Jerome Greenfield, W.W. Norton, NY, c.1974.
"Fury on Earth: A Biography of Wilhelm Reich", by Myron Sharaf, St.Martin's/Marek.
Greenfield is a former professor at SUNY-Buffalo, and did extensive Freedom-of-Information-Act
searches of FDA files, as part of his research. Sharaf was a lecturer at Harvard, and knew
Reich, worked with him, and presents an excellent and well-documented biography.
As indicated above, one cannot make a decent judgement of this matter from purely internet
resources. Reading of the original books and journal articles is a must, as with any serious
question of science. These are two major controversies in the sciences, of Miller and Reich,
and they are not going away, and will not be driven down by attacks and ridicule, which can
never substitute for genuine scientific inquiry. Thank you for your patience with this
lengthy rebuttal.
Sincerely,
James DeMeo, Ph.D.
Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab
PO Box 1148
Ashland, Oregon 97520
c.h.thompson
> > > I once had a long argument with an anonymo calling
> > > himself "ripzone23" about Miller and DeMeo. I'm not
> > > going to repeat anything, since it's all here in the thread:
> > >
> >
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=Mt207.11411%24YS5.1124484@afrodite
> > I can find no sign of you knowing anything at all on the subject,
>
> Although I happen to know something on the subject, I'm not at
> all interested in it. The subject is DeMeo
I'm so sorry! I thought we were talking about Dayton Miller and
hankland -- and the fact that a piece of research stands on its own merits,
regardless of race, creed, politics or other activities of the worker
concerned. In the case of DeMeo and his studies of Miller and Shankland, he
happens to be the expert.
I have not looked into his other work but have no reason to doubt that he
himself believes his orgone accumulator is beneficial. Since, in my view,
the whole universe is made of aether, I do not need to know more: his
machine most undoubtedly depends on it.
If the subject IS the existence of aether drift, then DeMeo's is the site to
go to. See http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm .
Dirk Van de moortel
"c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote in message news:3c9ed...@news2.vip.uk.com...
>
> Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:68tn8.29926$DE4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
> > > > I once had a long argument with an anonymo calling
> > > > himself "ripzone23" about Miller and DeMeo. I'm not
> > > > going to repeat anything, since it's all here in the thread:
> > > >
> > >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=Mt207.11411%24YS5.1124484@afrodite
>
> > > I can find no sign of you knowing anything at all on the subject,
> >
> > Although I happen to know something on the subject, I'm not at
> > all interested in it. The subject is DeMeo
>
> I'm so sorry! I thought we were talking about Dayton Miller and
> hankland -- and the fact that a piece of research stands on its own merits,
> regardless of race, creed, politics or other activities of the worker
> concerned. In the case of DeMeo and his studies of Miller and Shankland, he
> happens to be the expert.
"Study" of Miller and Shankland?
Have you actually ever read this "article"?
Do you call *this* a study:
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
?
DeMeo an "expert"?
DeMeo a Ph.D.? In Physics?
You must be utterly joking.
> I have not looked into his other work but have no reason to doubt that he
> himself believes his orgone accumulator is beneficial. Since, in my view,
> the whole universe is made of aether, I do not need to know more: his
> machine most undoubtedly depends on it.
Do look into his other work.
Reich desperately needed an ether and as many gullible people as
he could find to sell his junk to.
His re-incarnation DeMeo took over Reich's stock, probably married
his daughter, and continued his work, albeit a little bit more careful.
Sadly he won't end up in prison.
Do you take this guy seriously?
You must be joking.
>
> If the subject IS the existence of aether drift, then DeMeo's is the site to
> go to. See http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm .
The only conclusion that I see, is that you are:
(1) joking, or
(2) extremely gullible, or
(3) thriving on other people's extreme gullibility
I bet a euro on option (3).
Dragging in a few derailed economists won't help change my mind.
Dirk Vdm
shuba
[to Caroline Thompson]
> The only conclusion that I see, is that you are:
> (1) joking, or
> (2) extremely gullible, or
> (3) thriving on other people's extreme gullibility
>
> I bet a euro on option (3).
> Dragging in a few derailed economists won't help change my mind.
There's no reason to think that your options are mutually exclusive.
In particular, both (2) and (3) go hand in hand. As I intimated in
another thread, pseudoscientists such as DeMeo peddle their swill by
dishonestly creating perceived threats, generating publicity. A
little critical thinking goes a long way. See the link added last
month at Quackwatch about the situation.
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/reich.html
---Tim Shuba---
Dirk Van de moortel
"James DeMeo" <de...@mind.net> wrote in message news:3C9E97DA...@mind.net...
> Caroline Thompson has been kind enough to post to me a few of the
> responses which have developed following her informing persons on
> these news groups about my investigations into the work of the late
> Dayton Miller. For the record, my paper on this subject is posted to:
>
> http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
>
> A series of rather insulting comments, personal attacks and other lies
> were posted after Ms. Thompson's efforts, mostly from Mr. Dirk
> Van De Moortel.
[snip]
Dear Mr.. Meo,
I retract everything I ever said and hereby really solemnly declare:
- Wilhelm Reich really was a genius.
- Wilhelm Reich really was a sincere person.
- Dayton Miller really was a good unbiased experimentalist.
- Robert Shankland really was a poor and inferior physicist.
- Caroline Thompson is really a top class physicist.
- Cloudbusters really work.
- Orgone accumulators really work.
- There really is an ether.
- Established science really is a giant conspiracy.
- Homeopathy really works with animals.
- Uri Geller really bends spoons with his mind.
- People have really been abducted by aliens.
- Venus was really ejected out of Jupiter.
- The ancient gods really were cosmonauts.
- Ships really disappear in the Bermuda Triangle.
- Astrologists are really good advisors for U.S. presidents.
- The moon landings really took place in a dome on Earth.
- Jesus of Nazareth really was the son of a god.
- Evolution really is an illusion.
- The Universe was really created about 6000 years ago.
- Science really is too difficult for ordinary people.
- You really are a nice and sincere person.
> Thank you for your patience with this lengthy rebuttal.
You are really welcome, and I am really sorry if I might have
offended you in any way.
> Sincerely,
>
> James DeMeo, Ph.D.
> Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab
> PO Box 1148
> Ashland, Oregon 97520
>
> de...@mind.net
Really sincerely too,
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"shuba" <tim....@eudoramail.com> wrote in message news:3c9f19a1$0$1599$9ba6...@news.pclink.com...
Nice site. I'll keep an eye on it :-)
Thanks.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Simon Clark" <evil...@clarksj.fNsOneSt.cPo.AukM> wrote in message news:2664990.K...@evilsrianconspiracy.org...
So I should consider Caroline's remark
| >>> Sounds like Mr. Moortel is a card-carrying member of CSICOP
as a compliment.
Which is nice.
Dirk Vdm
c.h.thompson
> So I should consider Caroline's remark
> | >>> Sounds like Mr. Moortel is a card-carrying member of CSICOP
> as a compliment.
[This was not my remark but James DeMeo's. That whole posting was his.]
> Which is nice.
So you are happy as a fully-paid up member of the establishment! Would they
be equally happy, I wonder, if they knew?
franz heymann
> James DeMeo <de...@mind.net> has asked me to forward the following:
[Snip]
I wonder why Mr. DeMeo appears to be a little scared of contributing
directly to the ng on topic which involves him?
Secondly, the fact that he chooses someone with so little knowledge of
physics as Caroline speaks volumes.
Franz Heymann
Dirk Van de moortel
"franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message news:3ca0f493$0$8514$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
I think the reason is clear: he hasn't even less knowledge of the subject
than Caroline.
He may have "taught courses in Physical Geography, Earth Science,
Natural Resources, Renewable Energy, Climatology, and World
Geography, etc., at four different major US universities, until going
my own way in 1988 with my own institute."
[Yes, I got that straight, Mr. Meo.]
So, clearly he never HAD to learn relativity either ;-)
Dirk Vdm
James DeMeo
reposted here.
From: James DeMeo (de...@mind.net)
Subject: Some Facts About Wilhelm Reich, and James DeMeo
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
Date: 2002-03-24 19:29:42 PST
Caroline Thompson has been kind enough to post to me a few of the responses
which have
developed following her informing persons on these news groups about my
investigations into
the work of the late Dayton Miller. For the record, my paper on this subject
is posted to:
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
A series of rather insulting comments, personal attacks and other lies were
posted after Ms.
http://www.orgonelab.org/xdemeo.htm
http://www.orgonelab.org/demeopub.htm
Sociology. I taught courses in Physical Geography, Earth Science, Natural
Resources,
Renewable Energy, Climatology, and World Geography, etc., at four different
major US
http://www.orgonelab.org/xdemeo.htm
http://www.orgonelab.org/events.htm
never substitute for genuine scientific inquiry. Thank you for your patience
with this
lengthy rebuttal.
Sincerely,
James DeMeo
Dirk Van de moortel
"James DeMeo" <de...@mind.net> wrote in message news:3CA251A0...@mind.net...
> I'm informed that my reply here was posted to the wrong thread, so it is
> reposted here.
It was posted on the right thread, but I will gladly repeat my reply.
I'm not going to repeat it twice like you did though.
Dear Mr. Meo,
I retract everything I ever said and hereby really solemnly declare:
- Wilhelm Reich really was a genius.
- Wilhelm Reich really was a sincere person.
- Dayton Miller really was a good unbiased experimentalist.
- Robert Shankland really was a poor and inferior physicist.
- Caroline Thompson is really a top class physicist.
- Cloudbusters really work.
- Orgone accumulators really work.
- There really is an ether.
- Established science really is a giant conspiracy.
- Homeopathy really works with animals.
- Uri Geller really bends spoons with his mind.
- People have really been abducted by aliens.
- Venus was really ejected out of Jupiter.
- The ancient gods really were cosmonauts.
- Ships really disappear in the Bermuda Triangle.
- Astrologists are really good advisors for U.S. presidents.
- The moon landings really took place in a dome on Earth.
- Jesus of Nazareth really was the son of a god.
- Evolution really is an illusion.
- The Universe was really created about 6000 years ago.
- Science really is too difficult for ordinary people.
- You really are a nice and sincere person.
> Thank you for your patience with this lengthy rebuttal.
You are really welcome, and I am really sorry if I might have
offended you in any way.
> Sincerely,
>
> James DeMeo, Ph.D.
> Director, Orgone Biophysical Research Lab
> PO Box 1148
> Ashland, Oregon 97520
>
> de...@mind.net
Really sincerely too,
Dirk Vdm
franz heymann
> Firstly, I have never met Ms. Thompson, and aside from our mutual
interest in
> ether-theory,
> and specifically the work of Dayton Miller, we have no connections.
I regard
> her as a
> top-notch scholar,
Birds of a feather flocking together?
> an original thinker who has a lot of important things to
> say,
What she has to say would carry more weight if she were to take the
trouble to familiarise herself with some physics first.
[Snip]
Franz Heymann
jmfb...@aol.com
Correction. She needs to understand the Scientific Method
and how work gets done. That's even more basic than physics.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Edward Green
Can't agree with you here. Ms. Thompson seems to have an excellent
grasp of "how work gets down", with a lot of careful scholarship,
orders of magnitude more than I am capable of, for example.
The comment about physics is more on the mark, but maybe not in the
sense intended... she is a classic outsider, and thus is not familiar
with the "professional deformation" of physics. She is, AFACT, a
statistician by training, and frankly statistics I have noticed tends
to be a weak point in those with training in physics. So two
different languages are spoken, without much mutual communication.
Stephen Speicher
> jmfb...@aol.com wrote in message news:<a81ka0$cma$9...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
> > In article <3ca437a5$0$8506$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
> > "franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >What she has to say would carry more weight if she were to take the
> > >trouble to familiarise herself with some physics first.
> >
> > Correction. She needs to understand the Scientific Method
> > and how work gets done. That's even more basic than physics.
>
> Can't agree with you here. Ms. Thompson seems to have an excellent
> grasp of "how work gets down", with a lot of careful scholarship,
> orders of magnitude more than I am capable of, for example.
>
I suspect you are confusing scholarship for the ability to
collect and list references. Actual scholarship requires both a
broad understanding and attention to detail, two qualities I have
not seen evinced by Thompson.
> The comment about physics is more on the mark, but maybe not in the
> sense intended... she is a classic outsider, and thus is not familiar
> with the "professional deformation" of physics. She is, AFACT, a
> statistician by training, and frankly statistics I have noticed tends
> to be a weak point in those with training in physics. So two
> different languages are spoken, without much mutual communication.
>
Sorry, but this is all bluster. Any difference in languages
spoken lies in the difference between fact and fiction. Thompson
characteristically distorts experimental procedures and/or
focuses on inessentials, and uses such as support for whatever
thesis she is currently promoting. The fact of the matter is,
she does not understand physics, neither theoretically nor
experimentally. It is not any supposed lack of "mutual
communication" which is the problem, but rather an overall lack
of understanding on her own part.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
franz heymann
Edward Green <null...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2a0cceff.0203...@posting.google.com...
There is no point in beating aboout the bush, so here goes :-
You state that Ms Thompson is a statistician by training.
I am not impressed with Ms Thompson's grasp of practical statistics..
She did not seem all that au fait with mundane topics like dead-time
correction, the determination of randoms rates in coincidences, the
statistical handling of matters like counting efficiency and the
verification as to whether or not a counter was sensitive to single
photons.
You are quite right about "no mutual communication". Ms. Thompson
clearly has
bees in her bonnet and nothing, but nothing is going to remove them.
In previous threads, I tried to conduct reasonably intelligent
conversations with her, with disastrous results because of her
complete lack of knowledge of modern experimental procedures in
physics, and because of her apparent rejection of all the developments
in physics during the whole of the twentieth century. I now restrict
my contributions to any thread in which she participates to occasional
simple lampooning , because I know the futility of any other course of
action.
Ye gods, Ms Thompson rejects the fact that the bulk photoelectric
effect has *never* been successfully interpreted in terms other than
that photons carry well defined quanta of energy. How much more
Luddite is it possible to be?
Ms Thompson appears to be unaware of the fact that *all*, ALL, *ALL*
the questions which have been asked of QED have yielded answers which
have been verified by experiment to the highest accuracies obtainable
in the computational procedures and the experimental resolutions. In
some cases the agreement has been better than 1 part in 10^7. Does
she realise that accuracies like that are beginning to strain the very
precision with which our fundamental units have been determined???
Franz Heymann
c.h.thompson
Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102032...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> > > >
> > > >What she has to say would carry more weight if she were to
> > > >take the trouble to familiarise herself with some physics first.
What do you think I've been trying to do for the past 8 or more years?
> > > Correction. She needs to understand the Scientific Method
> > > and how work gets done. That's even more basic than physics.
Hmmm ...
> > Can't agree with you here. Ms. Thompson seems to have an excellent
> > grasp of "how work gets down", with a lot of careful scholarship,
> > orders of magnitude more than I am capable of, for example.
Thanks, Ed!
> I suspect you are confusing scholarship for the ability to
> collect and list references. Actual scholarship requires both a
> broad understanding and attention to detail, two qualities I have
> not seen evinced by Thompson.
Really? What more detail is there that I ought to pay attention to re the
Bell test loopholes? Nobody else seems to know the first thing about them
and yet these are the things that will eventually save our sanity!
Tolerance of the loopholes, as opposed to full investigation of them,
represents a failure of scientific method. Ignoring of anomalies represents
another.
As for "understanding", Neils Bohr et al decided that physics was not
concerned with "understanding" but with prediction. My aim is to
understand, not just learn formulae.
> > The comment about physics is more on the mark, but maybe
> > not in the sense intended... she is a classic outsider, and thus
> > is not familiar with the "professional deformation" of physics.
And what might that mean?
> > She is, AFACT, a
> > statistician by training, and frankly statistics I have noticed tends
> > to be a weak point in those with training in physics. So two
> > different languages are spoken, without much mutual
> > communication.
True, the communication does SEEM to be all one way, but isn't this just
tactics of the "debate"? The supporters of accepted theory endlessly ignore
my points, rarely answer my questions, avoid following up points of
interest. They make it appear as if there WERE no points of interest and/or
they did not understand what I was saying. I should say that, in general, I
understand very well what they are saying.
> Sorry, but this is all bluster. Any difference in languages
> spoken lies in the difference between fact and fiction. Thompson
> characteristically distorts experimental procedures and/or
> focuses on inessentials,
such as the loopholes in the Bell tests! Some day, when the world returns
to the use of common sense, it will be realised that these are concerned
with unjustified (and in fact false) assumptions made by quantum theorists
in order to allow them to continue to believe in their theory. It is all
done subconsciously, rationalised (at least in Aspect's case) by elegant
arguments, but at the end of the day the game is not being played on a level
field.
> and uses such as support for whatever
> thesis she is currently promoting.
The Bell tests involve THE most fundamental point of principle in the whole
of physics: the principle of local causality. The arguments I use to
promote this are based on facts gleaned from experimental reports and from
correspondence with experimenters. Those who oppose me have, for the most
part, never looked at the facts, only read second-hand opinions.
> ... It is not any supposed lack of "mutual
> communication" which is the problem, but rather an overall lack
> of understanding on her own part.
Oh yes? And just how much "understanding" does anyone have of how light is
produced? What does it benefit anyone to learn by rote how to calculate the
emission spectra of an atom? Do students realise that the formulae they
have to learn are impossible to relate to the physical world?
See Fedak, William A and Jeffrey J Prentis, "Quantum jumps and classical
harmonics", American Journal of Physics 70 (3), 332-344 (2002). The quantum
theory formulae were inspired by classical ideas. The classical ones were
undoubtedly not quite right, but at least they made sense. According to
quantum theory light is emitted instantaneously, in "photons", and one atom
only emits one at a time, so that to get a complete spectrum, with lines of
varying intensities, you need a huge ensemble of atoms. There is no
evidence for this. The classical picture gives individual atoms emitting
complete spectra. Though this is probably wrong too, it is undoubtedly
better. It at least allows light to be emitted in pulses of finite
duration. It allows it to be a wave, which eliminates a whole group of
quantum "conceptual difficulties" at one blow.
c.h.thompson
> You state that Ms Thompson is a statistician by training.
> I am not impressed with Ms Thompson's grasp of practical statistics..
> She did not seem all that au fait with mundane topics like dead-time
> correction, the determination of randoms rates in coincidences, the
> statistical handling of matters like counting efficiency and the
> verification as to whether or not a counter was sensitive to single
> photons.
Uh???? Please specify what it is you think I don't understand!
> ... I now restrict
> my contributions to any thread in which she participates to occasional
> simple lampooning ,
So I see. This is a waste of time.
> Ye gods, Ms Thompson rejects the fact that the bulk photoelectric
> effect has *never* been successfully interpreted in terms other than
> that photons carry well defined quanta of energy.
And you reject the fact that the experimenters who showed that Einsteins
formula was at least roughly right rejected outright his interpretation of
it! The interpretation is only compelling IF Einstein's interpretation of
Planck's black body formula is correct, but THAT is correct only if you
believe in photons. This circular argument proves precisely nothing.
The photoelectric effect is, incidentally, interpreted using a purely wave
theory of light in Stochastic Electrodynamics -- a theory that reproduces
all the main results of quantum theory.
Edward Green
> On 29 Mar 2002, Edward Green wrote:
>
> > jmfb...@aol.com wrote in message news:<a81ka0$cma$9...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> >
> > > In article <3ca437a5$0$8506$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
> > > "franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >What she has to say would carry more weight if she were to take the
> > > >trouble to familiarise herself with some physics first.
> > >
> > > Correction. She needs to understand the Scientific Method
> > > and how work gets done. That's even more basic than physics.
> >
> > Can't agree with you here. Ms. Thompson seems to have an excellent
> > grasp of "how work gets down", with a lot of careful scholarship,
> > orders of magnitude more than I am capable of, for example.
> >
>
> I suspect you are confusing scholarship for the ability to
> collect and list references.
I'd like to rejoin that you are confusing "for" with "with", but
perhaps the idiom is different on the west coast, so I forbear for
now.
> Actual scholarship requires both a
> broad understanding and attention to detail, two qualities I have
> not seen evinced by Thompson.
Good word... "evinced". I had to look that up! I wanted it to be a
folk-etymology for "evidenced", but I am disappointed. At least I can
take pleasure in the fact that its history seems to show a constant
drift, presumably by people who were always searching for that
suitable uncommon word, and got just the wrong one. The dictionary
however supports your current habit.
I suspect I reached this late stage of life never having looked up
"evinced" because my intuition told me it was a reaching for the $10
word, and it sounded made up. No...it's just a current bastardization
of a word which originally meant "vanquished", but filled in
conveniently for centuries for those wishing to make an erudite sound
and not too sure of the meaning. Get the drift?
I've seen a great deal of attention to detail on Thompson's part, such
as, reading Aspect's thesis in the original French. If that's not
scholarship, I don't know what is. "Broad understanding"? That's a
bit subjective. Though I don't suppose it means anything in
particular, except that you don't know what she's on about, and it
parses well with "attention to detail".
> > The comment about physics is more on the mark, but maybe not in the
> > sense intended... she is a classic outsider, and thus is not familiar
> > with the "professional deformation" of physics. She is, AFACT, a
> > statistician by training, and frankly statistics I have noticed tends
> > to be a weak point in those with training in physics. So two
> > different languages are spoken, without much mutual communication.
> >
>
> Sorry, but this is all bluster.
"Bluster"!? What is? CT's remarks, or mine?
A number of comments: C.S. Lewis in his novel "That (or was it "The"
... details, details...) Hideous Strength remarks in the omniscient
narrator mode that a certain character reacted to an accusation of
murder just about the way which any man might react under the
circumstances, but which is apt to be referred to in police reports as
"blustering".
What you are saying is, my comments don't immediately strike a
resonance with you, so you assume I am bullshiting, or perhaps
spouting catch-phrases in some semi-plausible order, the way you like
to. Consonant with your use of the $10 evinced above, where a working
class "shown" would have sufficed... giving your opinions ever so much
more weight, don't you know... you don't say you think I am talking
bullshit as an honest poster like Old Man might have, but that I am
full of "bluster". What bullshit.
You don't even know me.
> Any difference in languages
> spoken lies in the difference between fact and fiction. Thompson
> characteristically distorts experimental procedures and/or
> focuses on inessentials, and uses such as support for whatever
> thesis she is currently promoting.
Now _that's_ bluster.
What she does do, and I have commented on, is almost willfully express
herself in crackpot flag phrases like "quantum mechanics is nonsense".
I could wish she did not do this. This is, in fact, quite
unfortunate. But however one expresses themselves there is sure to be
some arrogant tyro like you around. I recall your name now, and I now
give voice to my former impression: arrogant, pompous, posturing
tyro.
> The fact of the matter is,
Well... _that's_ certainly an interesting and unique phrase! It quite
impresses me with your scholarship as well as your creative writing
abilitiies and simple raw original creative _talent_! You mean, the
fact of the matter in the final analysis?
> she does not understand physics, neither theoretically nor
> experimentally.
Do you read what you write? "Does not understand physics"? What is
this, a yes/no proposition, an up/down spin measurment? Does that
phrase have any useful meaning whatever, beside "she is not one of the
gang"? Attention to logical detail, don't you know.
And speaking of logical detail, there is no such thing as
understanding physics "experimentally". What on earth does that mean?
One understands everything, theory and more theory and experiment,
with the aid of theory: that is, with the aid of logical models. But
of course, if we want to write on the surface and string together
plausible word strings which might fool other tyros, along with
pleasant use of "Scholoarship here! Get your fresh intellectual
scholarship!" - words, like "evinced" and "bluster", then everybody
_knows_ that physics is both "experimental" and "theoretical", so if
you want to make the vague characterization "does not understand
physics", well, what finer way to do it than to specify she sings
neither _country_ nor _western_! Doesn't know a damn thing, does she?
Probably cant rotate levo- _or_ dextorotatory to boot!
This would all be logical nit-picking, of course, except that you set
yourself up as a judge of "attention to detail" and "broad
understanding", and then string together plausible banalities cemented
by cliches. This invites the style of rebuttal.
> It is not any supposed lack of "mutual
> communication" which is the problem, but rather an overall lack
> of understanding on her own part.
You are incredibly narrow and arrogant, and not worth the trouble to
talk to. I guess Caltech went to your head, or something, and you
really began to believe you were as brilliant as they kept telling
you. This will all roll off your back, I'm sure, but those who
recognize your type will experience a pleasant empathic nod.
Have a _splendid_ day.
Ed
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.10.102032...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>...
>
>>
Well, the fact of the matter remains that Stephen is right in his
assessment, no matter how much prose you pile on it.
Stephen Speicher
> In article <2a0cceff.02032...@posting.google.com>, null...@aol.com (Edward Green) writes:
> >Stephen Speicher <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.10.102032...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu>...
> >
> >> On 29 Mar 2002, Edward Green wrote:
> >>
> ... long snip ...
>
> Well, the fact of the matter remains that Stephen is right in his
> assessment, no matter how much prose you pile on it.
>
I suspect that Mati is just being polite in characterizing
Green's bombastic verbiage as "prose." Anyone who could obsess so
much over the use of the word evince, in lieu of offerring
arguments relevant to the issue, should at least offer to his
readers hip-high boots to wade through his post. I deemed it not
exactly worthy of a direct response.
Note the following which appeared today on
sci.physics.relativity. To another poster who wrongly demeaned a
whole group of experiments, Steve Carlip offerred a series of
examples, including this mention:
"How has the Vessot-Levine (Gravity Probe A) experiment
been ``quietly downgraded''?"
To which our (un)scholarly Caroline Thompson replied:
"Give it time! I do not know anything about this
experiment but if the theory is it supposed to support
is nonsense one can trust Nature to eventually debunk
it."
She admits she knows nothing about the experiment, but, if it is
offerred as support for that which she does not agree, _then_ she
is confident the experiment will be debunked. This reveals the
epistemology, not of a scientist, but of a mystic, and most
definitely not a scholar.
A scientist judges experimental evidence based on the physical
facts, not upon whatever theory she feels the experiment may or
may not support. One approaches an experiment in an objective
manner, putting nothing above the facts, and one does not assume
it to be right or wrong by any other criteria than its proper
execution.
Thompson has continually demonstrated a lack of respect for
physical facts, which are simply pushed aside for those
experiments which she feels disagree with her views. On the other
hand, she is willing to embrace any old slipshod experiment if
she thinks it can be molded in a way to lend support for whatever
she feels.
Scientist? Scholar? Hardly either. Green supports her with
hip-high rhetoric because she is otherwise indefensible, as is he.
c.h.thompson
Ed Green is right: you don't read what you write, Stephen!
Look again! What I actually wrote was a tautology.
> "How has the Vessot-Levine (Gravity Probe A) experiment
> been ``quietly downgraded''?"
>
> To which our (un)scholarly Caroline Thompson replied:
>
> "Give it time! I do not know anything about this
> experiment but if the theory is it supposed to support
> is nonsense one can trust Nature to eventually debunk
> it."
>
> She admits she knows nothing about the experiment, but, if it is
> offerred as support for that which she does not agree, _then_ she
> is confident the experiment will be debunked. This reveals the
> epistemology, not of a scientist, but of a mystic, and most
> definitely not a scholar.
I did NOT say this, Stephen. All I said was that if the theory was in fact
wrong then some day the supposed evidence would be debunked.
Al Kelly, incidentally, informs me that the experiment you reference does
not in fact even pretend to support SR.
Cheers
franz heymann
du...
[Snip]
> Thompson has continually demonstrated a lack of respect for
> physical facts, which are simply pushed aside for those
> experiments which she feels disagree with her views.
In other words, the whole of twentieth century experimental physics,
starting with Einstein's analysis of the early results on the
photo-electric effect, except only for the erroneous results of
Dayton Miller's attempted repeats of the MM ether drift observations.
That is, unless Thompson has recently dug up some other faulty
experiment with whose results she agrees
> Scientist? Scholar? Hardly either. Green supports her with
> hip-high rhetoric because she is otherwise indefensible, as is he.
>
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
> franz heymann <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
> news:3ca4ebf0$0$8508$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
> > You state that Ms Thompson is a statistician by training.
> > I am not impressed with Ms Thompson's grasp of practical
statistics..
> > She did not seem all that au fait with mundane topics like
dead-time
> > correction, the determination of randoms rates in coincidences,
the
> > statistical handling of matters like counting efficiency and the
> > verification as to whether or not a counter was sensitive to
single
> > photons.
>
> Uh???? Please specify what it is you think I don't understand!
Modern experimental Physics and the ways in which experimental data
is analysed.
Your memory is conveniently short when it suits you. Mine is getting
short, but I do remembber a long and painful discussion with you on
the subject of testing the sensitivity of a photomultiplier for
detecting single photo-electron pulses. Feel free to look up in the
archives how little you knew before the discussion started and how
little you actually learnt from the discussion.
> > ... I now restrict
> > my contributions to any thread in which she participates to
occasional
> > simple lampooning ,
>
> So I see. This is a waste of time.
>
> > Ye gods, Ms Thompson rejects the fact that the bulk photoelectric
> > effect has *never* been successfully interpreted in terms other
than
> > that photons carry well defined quanta of energy.
>
> And you reject the fact that the experimenters who showed that
Einsteins
> formula was at least roughly right
Einstein's interpretation of the bulk photoelectric effect is
performed routinely in all well equipped undergraduate physics
laboratories in the world. Einstein's formula is in this way daily
proved more than "roughly right". A diligent undergraduate can verify
the value of Planck's constant to at least three and sometimes four
decimal figure accuracy with this apparatus.
> rejected outright his interpretation of
> it! The interpretation is only compelling IF Einstein's
interpretation of
> Planck's black body formula is correct, but THAT is correct only if
you
> believe in photons. This circular argument proves precisely
nothing.
I do not recognise any circles here.
I recognise only forward progression in understanding.
Planck made the hypothesis that E = h*nu.
Planck deduced the black-body radiation curve from this hypothesis
This shape of the curve fitted the hypothesis. That constitutes
evidence no.1 for the hypothesis.
Einstein used the same hypothesis to make an additional prediction,
namely the interpretation of the bulk photo-electric effect
The prediction explains all the qualitative features of the data.
That constituted evidence no. 2 for the hypothesis.
The numerical analysis of the data provides an independent, new value
for h. This turns out to be in agreement with the value found by
Planck in a entirely different context. That constituted evidence
no.3 for the hypothesis.
Ms. Thompson, I hope you will agree that my exposition above confirms
my thoughts that not only is your knowledge of physics very defective,
but that also your knowledge of the scientific method needs oiling.
The photoelectric effect is, incidentally, interpreted using a purely
wave
> theory of light in Stochastic Electrodynamics -- a theory that
reproduces
> all the main results of quantum theory.
To be viable, that theory
(1) Has to reproduce not only the "main" results of QED but "every"
result of QED which has so far been deduced and computed and compared
with experiment.
(2) The postulates of that theory have to produce at least one
prediction which differs from the corresponding prediction of QED, so
that a crucial experiment may be performed.
In the meantime, feel free to develop your theory, but don't
proselytise for it prematurely.
>
Franz Heymann
jmfb...@aol.com
null...@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote in message news:<a81ka0$cma$9...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
>> In article <3ca437a5$0$8506$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
>> "franz heymann" <franz....@care4free.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >James DeMeo <de...@mind.net> wrote in message
>> >news:3CA251A0...@mind.net...
>> >
>> >> Firstly, I have never met Ms. Thompson, and aside from our mutual
>> interest in
>> >> ether-theory,
>> >> and specifically the work of Dayton Miller, we have no connections.
>> I regard
>> >> her as a
>> >> top-notch scholar,
>> >
>> >Birds of a feather flocking together?
>> >
>> >> an original thinker who has a lot of important things to
>> >> say,
>> >
>> >What she has to say would carry more weight if she were to take the
>> >trouble to familiarise herself with some physics first.
>>
>> Correction. She needs to understand the Scientific Method
>> and how work gets done. That's even more basic than physics.
>
>Can't agree with you here. Ms. Thompson seems to have an excellent
>grasp of "how work gets down", with a lot of careful scholarship,
>orders of magnitude more than I am capable of, for example.
No, she doesn't. She seems to have the assumption that each
publication is a work that stands alone. She's got no idea about
overall projects (I don't know what the physics biz calls them.)
Our equivalent was a project plan where many programs were modified
to implement one feature. A physics paper about an experiment
is the equivalent of one modification to one page of code even
though a hundred other pages have to be modeified to get the
program to completely support the new feature.
>
>The comment about physics is more on the mark, but maybe not in the
>sense intended... she is a classic outsider, and thus is not familiar
>with the "professional deformation" of physics. She is, AFACT, a
>statistician by training, and frankly statistics I have noticed tends
>to be a weak point in those with training in physics. So two
>different languages are spoken, without much mutual communication.
She doesn't do math (a retort to one of /jac's attempts to get
her to understand what these experiments were all about). /jac
wrote ~a million bytes over the last five years to teach her.
She's back to saying the same old thing, including the defamation.
shuba
Stephen wrote:
> I suspect that Mati is just being polite in characterizing
> Green's bombastic verbiage as "prose." Anyone who could obsess so
> much over the use of the word evince, in lieu of offerring
> arguments relevant to the issue, should at least offer to his
> readers hip-high boots to wade through his post. I deemed it not
> exactly worthy of a direct response.
Good for you. I long ago wrote off nulldev as what he's shown
himself to be in this thread, after I read some disgusting posts
attacking Tom Roberts. Consider yourself in good company.
---Tim Shuba---
Robert J. Kolker
> theory of light in Stochastic Electrodynamics -- a theory that reproduces
> all the main results of quantum theory.
One such experiment was done by Hanberry-Brown and Twiss, HOWEVER
there is an experiment by Grangier, Roger and Aspect that definitely
shows photons exist
and cannot be explained by a stochastic-wavetheory application. The
Hanberry-Brown Twiss experiment did not contradict photons. It showed
that another hypothesis could explain the photo-electrict effect.
See -The Quantum Challange- by Greenstein and Zajonc pp 22-35 for more
details.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> As for "understanding", Neils Bohr et al decided that physics was not
> concerned with "understanding" but with prediction. My aim is to
> understand, not just learn formulae.
Don't poo pooh prediction. If a theory does not predict, it must be
discarded or fixed.
Physic's first and foremost task to to predict the outcomes of
exiperiments not yet attempted under conditions not previously met. As
to understanding, the best understanding we have of the world is by
way of the models we construct from the facts we can glean from the
world. These include direct perception and theory laden inference from
instrumental observation. The only things we *know* is that which we
perceive directly. The rest are inferences of greater or lesser
cogency. If you want to characterize understanding as that warm cozy
feeling you have for you pet theories and hypotheses, go right ahead.
We live in semi-free countries. Our favorite theories are like our pet
dogs, cats or other warm and cuddly critters we have come to live. We
like their company and we wish to protect them from harm. A very good
attitude toward pets, a very bad attitude toward theories.
Science can be thought of as a game of Kriegspiel (this is anology so
let it not be carried to the point of absurdity) between the scientist
and Nature. He tries to figure out what Nature is from a descrete set
of facts given to him by observation and experiment. If his
suppositions lead to his checkmate, then he starts another game or
backs up over his mistaken assumptions.
Bob Kolker
>
c.h.thompson
Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:1ac7da4c.02033...@posting.google.com...
> "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote
> >
> > The photoelectric effect is, incidentally, interpreted using a
> > purely wave theory of light in Stochastic Electrodynamics --
> > a theory that reproduces all the main results of quantum theory.
>
> One such experiment was done by Hanberry-Brown and Twiss,
> HOWEVER there is an experiment by Grangier, Roger and
> Aspect that definitely shows photons exist and cannot be
> explained by a stochastic-wavetheory application.
Oh yes? You evidently have not read quite all of my recent postings. I am
quite familiar with the Grangier, Roger and Aspect paper (Grangier, P, G
Roger and A Aspect, "Experimental Evidence for a photon anticorrelation
effect on a beam splitter: a new light on single-photon interferences",
Europhysics Letters 1, 173-179 (1986)).
A refutation of the claim that this shows photon behaviour is to be found
in:
Marshall, T W and Santos, E, Europhysics Letters, 3, 293-6 (1987)
I'm not sure I fully agree with their explanation, but if you look at the
actual GRA86 paper you will see that the results were NOT clearcut. Results
even more extreme have been produced in later experiments in Japan. See:
Mizobuchi, Yutaka and Yoshiyuki Ohtake, "An Experiment to show both the
classical wave and particle behaviors of light", Proceedings of the 4th
International Symposium on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Tokyo 1992.
JJAP Series 9
Again, one way or another, I am sure that these can be explained using
stochastic wave theory. I would need to know more details than are in the
paper before giving a full explanation. The authors intended to do some
more comprehensive investigation but I don't know if they ever did.
> The Hanberry-Brown Twiss experiment did not contradict photons.
> It showed that another hypothesis could explain the photo-electric effect.
Have you a reference for the paper? I know that the Hanbury Brown and Twiss
experiments I've looked at have all been more readily explained using
classical wave ideas than quantum theory.
Hanbury Brown himself was rather a reluctant user of the photon concept!
He said re one experiment:
"As a personal observation, I know of many instances where a phenomenon,
puzzling from the standpoint of classical physics, received a satisfactory
treatment within the framework of quantum physics. In the present case,
ironically, a phenomenon happily understandable by means of basic physical
optics became a troublesome enigma when examined from the viewpoint of the
quantum theory of light."
[Silverman, Mark P, "And yet it moves. Strange Systems and Subtle Questions
in Physics", Cambridge University Press 1993, page 48]
c.h.thompson
I wrote:
> > Please specify what it is you think I don't understand!
>
> Modern experimental Physics and the ways in which experimental data
> is analysed.
That's a bit vague!
> Your memory is conveniently short when it suits you. Mine is getting
> short,
Yours is, I fear, misleading you.
> but I do remembber a long and painful discussion with you on
> the subject of testing the sensitivity of a photomultiplier for
> detecting single photo-electron pulses.
Was it you who tried to persuade me that undergraduate experiments that
showed that counts were proportional to intensities were relevant to
discussion of the behaviour of the detectors used in the Bell tests?
I seem to remember that you never supplied sufficient detail for me to be
able to tell what was actually done.
> Einstein's interpretation of the bulk photoelectric effect is
> performed routinely in all well equipped undergraduate physics
> laboratories in the world.
I'm afraid you have worded this incorrectly. Experiments are routinely
performed that reproduce Einstein's photoelectric formula (though that is
itself debatable: see Keesing, Richard, "The measurement of Planck's
constant using the visible photoelectric effect", European Journal of
Physics 2, 139-149, 1981)
However, the interpretation of the observations is another matter. Millikan,
who did the definitive experiment on the subject (See Millikan, R A, "A
Direct Photoelectric Determination of Planck's 'h'", Physical Review 7,
355-388, 1916) says:
"It was in 1905 that Einstein made the first coupling of photo effects and
with any form of quantum theory by bringing forward the bold, not to say
reckless, hypothesis of an electro-magnetic light corpuscle of energy h?,
which energy was transferred upon absorption to an electron. This
hypothesis may well be called reckless, first because an electromagnetic
disturbance which remains localised in space seems a violation of the very
conception of an electromagnetic disturbance, and second because it flies in
the face of the thoroughly established facts of interference."
He procedes to discuss his experiments and verify Einstein's formula, but
then goes on to discuss the interpretation. Among other things, he says:
"Yet the semi-corpuscular theory by which Einstein arrived at his equation
seems at present to be wholly untenable."
> In the meantime, feel free to develop your theory, but don't
> proselytise for it prematurely.
My main aim is to pinpoint areas in which experiments may have been
misinterpreted, or even (as in the case of the Bell tests) been misanalysed
or used invalid tests. Anyone who wants to devise an improved fundamental
theory needs to know where the areas of weakness are in the experimental
basis of the existing ones. Future theories do not need to reproduce the
predictions of quantum theory, only the experimental facts.
Where is your natural curiosity, Franz? Why the reluctance to look for more
satisfactory theories? Why the embargo on discussing possible faults? Why
so little interest in the experimental facts?
Don't you realise that it is precisely by the kind of nit-picking that I've
been doing that we give ourselves a chance of progress! What about those
little anomalies that Aspect found? Why have they not been investigated at
higher replication? I could go on, but will spare your sensitivity!
franz heymann
>
> franz heymann <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
> news:3ca594ad$0$8508$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> I wrote:
> > > Please specify what it is you think I don't understand!
> >
> > Modern experimental Physics and the ways in which experimental
data
> > is analysed.
>
> That's a bit vague!
>
> > Your memory is conveniently short when it suits you. Mine is
getting
> > short,
>
> Yours is, I fear, misleading you.
>
> > but I do remembber a long and painful discussion with you on
> > the subject of testing the sensitivity of a photomultiplier for
> > detecting single photo-electron pulses.
>
> Was it you who tried to persuade me that undergraduate experiments
that
> showed that counts were proportional to intensities were relevant to
> discussion of the behaviour of the detectors used in the Bell tests?
Kindly desist from being disingenuous. You
are distorting the facts of the matter to suit your present purposes.
I discussed with you certain procedures we followed when testing
photomultipliers at CERN. Since we were interested in detecting
single photoelectrons produced in a Cerenkov counter we had to produce
and test a beam of photons which was feeble enough to produce
essentially single photo-electrons within the resolving time of the
photomultiplier circuit. One spin-off from this research was this
(rather simple) single photon source which we adapted for use in our
undergraduate laboratories as part of a 3rd year practical project. I
did explain this to you in more detail than you were able to get to
grips with at the time.
>
> I seem to remember that you never supplied sufficient detail for me
to be
> able to tell what was actually done.
You are once again being disingenuous because it suits you.. I gave
you a great deal of detail. The fact that you were not equipped to
get to grips with it is your shortcoming, not mine You are welcome to
delve into the google archives if you want to refresh your memory.
You are being so devious that I refuse to carry this conversation any
further.
Goodbye
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
[Snip]
>
> Have you a reference for the paper? I know that the Hanbury Brown
and Twiss
> experiments I've looked at have all been more readily explained
using
> classical wave ideas than quantum theory.
Nonsense, as usual.
The Hanbury-Brown and Twiss observations fell neatly in the domain in
which the correspondence principle reigns at its best. It is
therefore no surprise that the effect can be explained either
classically or quantum mechanically.. The question of "more readily"
does not come into the picture. I don't know if you have ever seen
the theories. If not, I recommend you to read a short section in the
thin book"Optical Coherence Theory" by Gordon Troup. The classical
and the quantum mechanical treatment are both given there.
Franz Heymann
Steve Harris
>
>The photoelectric effect is, incidentally, interpreted using a purely wave
>theory of light in Stochastic Electrodynamics -- a theory that reproduces
>all the main results of quantum theory.
Um, so what? In quantum field theory it's perfectly reasonable to look at
the world as being entirely made up of fields-- the EM field, the electron
field, the neutrino field, and so on. What we call "particles" are then
merely the *effects* of lumps of energy absorbed out of the field (which
process has to be done in energy lumps set by the field frequency, according
to QM). It's perfectly okay to disbelieve somehow in the ultimate "reality"
of photons-- so long as you're willing to give up the same notion as regards
electrons. And, while you're at it, atoms. And baseballs. *
But you see the problem. If you don't want to view a photon as a "thing,"
nor an electron, nor at atom, nor a baseball, then what in the world DO you
regard as a "thing"? Something you can feel as a kick when it hits you,
like a baseball? How about small kicks, as when a mosquito or bacterium
hits you? That kick is just momentum. Baseballs have it, bacteria have it,
and atoms, and electrons.... and photons. So where are you going to draw
this magic line? And are you embarked on a project which really has any
meaning at all, except via silly arbitrary semantics?
SBH
* It's okay to look at the world as being made entirely of particles in QFT
also, as Feynman did, but that's another story. However you do it, you also
have to take in the funny phases of small momentum "objects"--- or, if you
like waves, the funny graininess of those at high momenta.
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
c.h.thompson
> The Hanbury-Brown and Twiss observations fell neatly in the domain in
> which the correspondence principle reigns at its best.
I note that you snipped my quotation by Hanbury Brown ...
> It is
> therefore no surprise that the effect can be explained either
> classically or quantum mechanically.. The question of "more readily"
> does not come into the picture. I don't know if you have ever seen
> the theories. If not, I recommend you to read a short section in the
> thin book"Optical Coherence Theory" by Gordon Troup. The classical
> and the quantum mechanical treatment are both given there.
Hmmm ... I spent a considerable (for me) sum of money on a great tome on
this subject:
Mandel, L and E Wolf, "Optical coherence and quantum optics", Cambridge
University Press, 1995
I was better off with the classical description that Mark Silverman had
given me. It made sense.
Mandel and Wolf's book, incidentally, is no better than any other when it
comes to discussing quantum entanglement. There is no discussion of the
Bell test loopholes.
c.h.thompson
> I discussed with you certain procedures we followed when testing
> photomultipliers at CERN. Since we were interested in detecting
> single photoelectrons produced in a Cerenkov counter we had to produce
> and test a beam of photons which was feeble enough to produce
> essentially single photo-electrons within the resolving time of the
> photomultiplier circuit.
Could you tell me, please, what wavelengths we are talking about here?
> One spin-off from this research was this
> (rather simple) single photon source which we adapted for use in our
> undergraduate laboratories as part of a 3rd year practical project. I
> did explain this to you in more detail than you were able to get to
> grips with at the time.
If you explained it then I'm afraid I never saw it. Perhaps you could
repeat it?
> You are welcome to
> delve into the google archives if you want to refresh your memory.
Come on now! There must be hundreds of postings to wade through, with no
guarantee that the subject line will hold a clue.
> You are being so devious that I refuse to carry this conversation any
> further.
I fail to see in what way I am being devious, but OK, we might as well agree
to differ. You think there is evidence for photons and I don't.
c.h.thompson
Steve Harris <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:a85g9e$sln$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> c.h.thompson wrote > >
> >The photoelectric effect is, incidentally, interpreted using a purely
> >wave theory of light in Stochastic Electrodynamics -- a theory that
> >reproduces all the main results of quantum theory.
>
> Um, so what? In quantum field theory it's perfectly reasonable to look at
> the world as being entirely made up of fields-- the EM field, the electron
> field, the neutrino field, and so on. What we call "particles" are then
> merely the *effects* of lumps of energy absorbed out of the field (which
> process has to be done in energy lumps set by the field frequency,
> according to QM). It's perfectly okay to disbelieve somehow in the
ultimate
> "reality" of photons-- so long as you're willing to give up the same
notion as
> regards electrons. And, while you're at it, atoms. And baseballs. *
There are two quite different kinds of physics, and it's time this was
recognised! There's the kind that is useful in technology, providing
relationships between things that can be measured and hence practical
predictions, and there is the kind that consists of a description of what
really happens. There should, ideally, be no clash between the two. It
should be clear that where there is a conflict it is always "what really
happens" that takes precendence.
For the past 80 years (I measure from the time of Einstein's rise to godhead
in 1919 with the New York Times sensational headines about his predicted
bending of light, not from his early papers, which had till then encountered
strong resistance) we have been forced by theorists and (dare I say it?)
theoretical cranks into getting it the wrong way around. And it's not as if
most of the mathematics that we have been told to accept is even useful!
One can manage perfectly well with
empirical results when it comes to atomic spectra. The theory could have
waited.
Anyway, as it happens I think the basis of physics needs to be at a level
below that at which electrons etc exist. I have put some of my ideas in an
essay:
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Papers/phi-waves.htm or
http://www.aber.ac.uk/~cat/Papers/phi-waves.pdf
> But you see the problem. If you don't want to view a photon
> as a "thing," nor an electron, nor at atom, nor a baseball, then
> what in the world DO you regard as a "thing"?
I have looked at the possibility of building the universe entirely out of
aether, with "solid bodies" coming into existence when waves of change of
state of the aether happen to exceed some threshold intensity. There are no
electrons, protons, photons or anything else at the base level of my
"Phi-Wave Aether" theory. It is not the kind of theory that is ever likely
to be completed, as there is too much we do not know about how things
actually happen -- how this "change of state" takes place and how "solids"
(collections of pulsating wave centres) interact with phi-waves -- but I
have yet to find any physical phenomenon that I can definitely say is
incompatible with the basic idea.
> Something you can feel as a kick when it hits you,
> like a baseball? How about small kicks, as when a
> mosquito or bacterium hits you? That kick is just
> momentum.
I do not even have concepts such as mass and momentum in the base level of
my PWA theory. These are properties that I would expect to emerge at a
higher level. (It is not a mathematical theory, though! If someone starts
actually doing calculations and producing predictive formulae from it, that
will be the end of its useful life. The fundamental level of theory NEEDS
to be left open-ended, not fossilised in equations.)
> ... where are you going to draw this magic line? And are
> you embarked on a project which really has any
> meaning at all, except via silly arbitrary semantics?
Have a look at my paper. I am not trying to do "useful" physics, but to
understand the background behind real phenomena. Such understanding should
be useful in the future. Some day we should be able to get better
descriptions of, for example, how semiconductors work. Is it REALLY a
matter of individual "electrons" jumping between states?
Bob Kolker
"c.h.thompson" wrote:
>
> > regards electrons. And, while you're at it, atoms. And baseballs. *
>
> There are two quite different kinds of physics, and it's time this was
> recognised! There's the kind that is useful in technology, providing
> relationships between things that can be measured and hence practical
> predictions, and there is the kind that consists of a description of what
> really happens.
The closest we get to "what really happens" is our very educated guesses
based on observed phenomena. Observations are what we know. Perceptions
are what we know. Anything else is hypothesis and inferenece from
hypothesis. To keep this guessing game sane, we insist that our
scienctific theories make testable predicitions. If the predictions fail
or cannot be accounted for by auxillary hypothesis the theory is broken
and must either be fixed or discarded.
There is only one kind of science. Science that makes testable
predictions and which is rigoursly tested. Your distinction has no merit
since it is based on the delusion that you can see what is not
resolvable by your senses.
And when you present us with a theory of "what really happens" I will
ask why does that happen to be what really happens. And you will give me
an explaination, and I will ask why is that explanation true, and we are
right back to science based on observation and hypothesis. Just like I
said. Your problem is that you postulate an *impossible* epistemological
standard for the goodness of a theory. Of course you will only be happy
with a theory that is as warm and cuddly as your prejudices. Ah yes, you
must have your waves and your aether. Right? Never mind that aether free
theories have done a magnificent job of prediction and have lead to
further fruitful research. Moreover these engineering oriented theories
that you detest have given us wonderful technology and a high standard
of living.
While man does not live by bread alone, without bread man starves.
Bob Kolker
>
Bob Kolker
"c.h.thompson" wrote:
>
>
> I fail to see in what way I am being devious, but OK, we might as well agree
> to differ. You think there is evidence for photons and I don't.
The photon hypothesis has borne fruit. That suffices. It has produced
your computer on which you type your complaints. In that last analysis,
science will be judged on its consistency with experiment and on the
technology it spawns. Aether based physics was a dead end which is why
it was discarded.
Bob Kolker
franz heymann
>
> franz heymann <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
> news:3ca631f2$0$8507$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> > I discussed with you certain procedures we followed when testing
> > photomultipliers at CERN. Since we were interested in detecting
> > single photoelectrons produced in a Cerenkov counter we had to
produce
> > and test a beam of photons which was feeble enough to produce
> > essentially single photo-electrons within the resolving time of
the
> > photomultiplier circuit.
>
> Could you tell me, please, what wavelengths we are talking about
here?
I told you at the time of the original correspondence that green LED's
were used.
>
> > One spin-off from this research was this
> > (rather simple) single photon source which we adapted for use in
our
> > undergraduate laboratories as part of a 3rd year practical
project. I
> > did explain this to you in more detail than you were able to get
to
> > grips with at the time.
>
> If you explained it then I'm afraid I never saw it. Perhaps you
could
> repeat it?
You did. You responded with your usual nonsense
>
> > You are welcome to
> > delve into the google archives if you want to refresh your memory.
>
> Come on now! There must be hundreds of postings to wade through,
with no
> guarantee that the subject line will hold a clue.
Probably thousands.
>
> > You are being so devious that I refuse to carry this conversation
any
> > further.
>
> I fail to see in what way I am being devious, but OK, we might as
well agree
> to differ. You think there is evidence for photons and I don't.
You are indisputably wrong
Franz Heymann
franz heymann
>
> franz heymann <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
> news:3ca631f3$0$8507$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
> > The Hanbury-Brown and Twiss observations fell neatly in the domain
in
> > which the correspondence principle reigns at its best.
>
> I note that you snipped my quotation by Hanbury Brown ...
I have no objection to reinserting it. Here it is:
"As a personal observation, I know of many instances where a
phenomenon,
puzzling from the standpoint of classical physics, received a
satisfactory
treatment within the framework of quantum physics. In the present
case,
ironically, a phenomenon happily understandable by means of basic
physical
optics became a troublesome enigma when examined from the viewpoint of
the
quantum theory of light."
Hanbury-Brown happened to be quite wrong in holding that view.
Reread what I said (below here) in my previous post. The
Hanbury-Brown & Twiss phenomenon is fuly explained in quantum terms in
the reference I gave there.
> > It is
> > therefore no surprise that the effect can be explained either
> > classically or quantum mechanically.. The question of "more
readily"
> > does not come into the picture. I don't know if you have ever
seen
> > the theories. If not, I recommend you to read a short section in
the
> > thin book"Optical Coherence Theory" by Gordon Troup. The
classical
> > and the quantum mechanical treatment are both given there.
>
> Hmmm ... I spent a considerable (for me) sum of money on a great
tome on
> this subject:
> Mandel, L and E Wolf, "Optical coherence and quantum optics",
Cambridge
> University Press, 1995
> I was better off with the classical description that Mark Silverman
had
> given me. It made sense.
So does the quantum description.
>
> Mandel and Wolf's book, incidentally, is no better than any other
when it
> comes to discussing quantum entanglement. There is no discussion of
the
> Bell test loopholes.
Possibly because they are red herrings?
>
Franz Heymann
Steve Harris
> Have a look at my paper. I am not trying to do "useful" physics, but to
> understand the background behind real phenomena.
The second sentence above shoots the one before right in the head. Sorry.
SBH
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
Bilge
Re: Physics does not have a temperature. to usenet:
>
>franz heymann <franz....@care4free.net> wrote in message
>news:3ca631f2$0$8507$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
>> I discussed with you certain procedures we followed when testing
>> photomultipliers at CERN. Since we were interested in detecting
>> single photoelectrons produced in a Cerenkov counter we had to produce
>> and test a beam of photons which was feeble enough to produce
>> essentially single photo-electrons within the resolving time of the
>> photomultiplier circuit.
>
>Could you tell me, please, what wavelengths we are talking about here?
supressed HPGe counters?
[...]
>I fail to see in what way I am being devious, but OK, we might as well
>agree to differ. You think there is evidence for photons and I don't.
The difference is that have no evidence to support you and haven't
the slightest idea of how any experimental apparatus functions, you
actually utilize the concept of photon in your own arguments without
admitting your objections are based upon quantum mechanics and finally,
you have no alternative that explains anything quantitatively. That's
not a matter of opinion. I've asked you to address each of these and
you have not.
Bilge
Re: Physics does not have a temperature. to usenet:
>
>news:1ac7da4c.02033...@posting.google.com...
>> "c.h.thompson" <c.h.th...@pgen.net> wrote
>> >
>> > The photoelectric effect is, incidentally, interpreted using a
>> > purely wave theory of light in Stochastic Electrodynamics --
>> > a theory that reproduces all the main results of quantum theory.
>>
>> One such experiment was done by Hanberry-Brown and Twiss,
>> HOWEVER there is an experiment by Grangier, Roger and
>> Aspect that definitely shows photons exist and cannot be
>> explained by a stochastic-wavetheory application.
>
>Oh yes? You evidently have not read quite all of my recent postings. I am
>quite familiar with the Grangier, Roger and Aspect paper (Grangier, P, G
since you appear to have translated part of aspect's thesis, yet had no
idea that some of things that I mentioned regarding the apparatus, were
stated in the thesis, it doesn't appear you actually read the paper as
opposed to searching for buzz-words. If you'll recall, I described a
cfd in response to your comment about complicated discrimination
electronics, and you didn't even notice that there was a section in
your own translation where the merits of a cfd vs. a simple threshold
discriminator were addressed.
Bilge
>
>understand the background behind real phenomena.
Well, you've certainly succeded in doing a lot of not useful something.
> Such understanding should be useful in the future. Some day we should
> be able to get better descriptions of, for example, how semiconductors
> work.
Gee. I would have though the ability to put 20 million transistors on
a piece of silicon and wire it up into a cpu, by design, would tend to
indicate that semiconductors are a lot better understood than you can
possibly judge.
> Is it REALLY a matter of individual "electrons" jumping between
> states?
Is _what_ really a matter of electrons jumping between _what_
states? There is more than one thing going on, you know. If there
were no discrete levels (and by implication, gaps), there would be
no fermi surface and matter wouldn't exist at all.
c.h.thompson
Bilge <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnaaena...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> c.h.thompson said some stuff about
> >Could you tell me, please, what wavelengths we are talking about here?
>
> ANY beta-gamma coincidence measurement. Want data from some compton
> supressed HPGe counters?
OK: so we are dealing with high frequencies. I'm interested in the low
(optical range) frequencies used in the Bell tests. The detectors would not
have been the same.
> The difference is that have no evidence to support you and haven't
> the slightest idea of how any experimental apparatus functions, you
> actually utilize the concept of photon in your own arguments
Please tell me where!
c.h.thompson
> c.h.thompson said some stuff about
> Reciting the title doesn't make you familiar with the paper. In fact,
> since you appear to have translated part of aspect's thesis, yet had no
> idea that some of things that I mentioned regarding the apparatus, were
> stated in the thesis, it doesn't appear you actually read the paper as
> opposed to searching for buzz-words. If you'll recall, I described a
> cfd in response to your comment about complicated discrimination
> electronics, and you didn't even notice that there was a section in
> your own translation where the merits of a cfd vs. a simple threshold
> discriminator were addressed.
Sorry, but with a name like "Bilge" you deserve this comment!
Balderdash!!!
Of course I noticed the entry in Aspect's thesis. It was not, as I said
before, relevant.
Bilge
>
>news:slrnaaena...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> c.h.thompson said some stuff about
>
>> >Could you tell me, please, what wavelengths we are talking about here?
>>
>> ANY beta-gamma coincidence measurement. Want data from some compton
>> supressed HPGe counters?
>
>OK: so we are dealing with high frequencies. I'm interested in the low
>(optical range) frequencies used in the Bell tests. The detectors would not
>have been the same.
What difference does it make? A 1.5 MeV gamma can be red shifted or
blue shifted to whatever energy I want, just by changing my velocity.
Changing my velocity can't change the nature of the light emitted
elsewhere, even if try to claim a gamma ray differs from light, (which it
doesn't). On the other hand, the detection process is fundamentally no
different. gamma ray enters 5 cm deep x 5 cm cylindrical Ge crystal
(a very large, diode), is stopped through the coulomb interaction and
the charge is collected at the terminals, integrated and converted to
a voltage pulse. In a phototube, a (lower energy) gamma ray comes in, is
stopped by the coulomb interaction in the photocathode, a charge is
knocked out toward the first dynode, amplified, collected at the anode
(or any one of the dynodes where possible), integrated and (if desired)
turned into a voltage pulse. The photoelectron and resulting amplification
plays the same role as the charge pairs in a Ge crystal.
You are now trying to claim that the only processes affected by
whatever mysterious attribute you attach to light, that it only
affects things that you want them to affect.
The wavelength of light in a typical bell test has to be somewhere
from UV to IR, since that's what phototubes see. That means the longest
wavelenths can't be more than about 800 nm (being generous). Even in your
convoluted notion that a "photon" is not a "thing", but a pieces of
things, all of the things land in the photocathode within a time span
of a few femtosec. Even if you tried to resolve the difference between
a spike and what you want to call it, it would be impossible.
In additon, the output of a phototube is _integrated_ through some
RC time to insure all of the charge is collected (if you use scintillators,
for example, the tails can be micro seconds), so your entire argument about
the yes/no condition (as I've already tried to explain at least once)
has no merit.
>> The difference is that have no evidence to support you and haven't
>> the slightest idea of how any experimental apparatus functions, you
>> actually utilize the concept of photon in your own arguments
>
>Please tell me where!
Parametric down conversion. Parametric down conversion doesn't occur
as a classical process. The down coherence wouldn't exist. Lasers. Lasers
cannot work classically. Atoms, for that matter cannot "work" classically.
I've already told you this, and you have been unable to refute it. All
you've managed to do is reference articles that support me, not you or
at best, someone that you'd like to think would support you, but nothing
they've said indicates this. Either support your own argument or get
someone you think has some credibility to argue it for you. It would
be an improvement to argue with someone who was merely wrong, but at
least could quantify how wrong.
Bilge
>Balderdash!!!
>
>Of course I noticed the entry in Aspect's thesis. It was not, as I said
>before, relevant.
Had you noticed that, you would have simply said so. And without
having compared the two, it could have very well been relavent,
since the coincidence timing and efficiency could very well have been
affected. A simple threshold discriminator has an output puls with
a timing which is rise-time dependent. A cfd does not suffer from that
problem. Therefore, noting that those were indeed tested for the
experiment, is relavent. Of course, not to you, since (1) you didn't
see it, (2) you wouldn't have know why it might of mattered, (3) you
were unlucky, since they found the difference to be zilch for the
particular set up they used.
c.h.thompson
> c.h.thompson said some stuff about
> >before, relevant.
>
>
> Had you noticed that, you would have simply said so.
No! You brought up the question of cfd's which Aspect had quite
specifically said were not used. I have consistently told you they were not
Proanimate
>
> Dear Mr.. Meo,
> I retract everything I ever said and hereby really solemnly declare:
>
> - Wilhelm Reich really was a genius.
> - Wilhelm Reich really was a sincere person.
> - Dayton Miller really was a good unbiased experimentalist.
> - Robert Shankland really was a poor and inferior physicist.
>
> - Caroline Thompson is really a top class physicist.
> - Cloudbusters really work.
> - Orgone accumulators really work.
> - There really is an ether.
> - Established science really is a giant conspiracy.
> - Homeopathy really works with animals.
> - Uri Geller really bends spoons with his mind.
> - People have really been abducted by aliens.
> - Venus was really ejected out of Jupiter.
> - The ancient gods really were cosmonauts.
> - Ships really disappear in the Bermuda Triangle.
> - Astrologists are really good advisors for U.S. presidents.
> - The moon landings really took place in a dome on Earth.
> - Jesus of Nazareth really was the son of a god.
> - Evolution really is an illusion.
> - The Universe was really created about 6000 years ago.
> - Science really is too difficult for ordinary people.
> - You really are a nice and sincere person.
>
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dirk, that's quite funny. But hiding your small-mindedness behind
humour is futile when you use small-minded sarcasm.
A scientist would approach orgone theory with severe doubts. Only a
pseudo-intellectual, or a complacent first-year undergraduate would
approach it scoffing with sarcasm.
Which of those three are you, Dirk?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Proanimate" <infoS...@proanimate.com> wrote in message news:43f16dfa.02040...@posting.google.com...
None of those. I am me.
I'll leave the long winded scientific severe doubts approach for those
who have more time, like for instance:
http://home.netcom.com/~rogermw/Reich/index.html
Besides, it wasn't meant to be sarcastic.
Cheers anyway ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Proanimate
> Besides, it wasn't meant to be sarcastic.
Oh I see, I'm sorry.
Does that mean you DO believe the universe was created 6000 years
ago? Or were you being sarcastic when you said you weren't being
sarcastic?
John
Dirk Van de moortel
"Proanimate" <infoS...@proanimate.com> wrote in message news:43f16dfa.02040...@posting.google.com...
None of them.
Either I was cynical when I said I wasn't being sarcastic, or I had
been cynical in the first place.
For me to know and for you to guess ;-)
Dirk Vdm