[NPA Chat] Sharing ideas

[Robert Beck]

I have just tried to help Robert Kemp, realising that he is on the right track, because he might be the one to break the deadlock in bringing the huge benefit of anti-gravity to humanity.

 

Instead of thanking me, he embarked on a tirade of abuse totally without foundation on the evidence and sources I provided, and in an outrageous act of hypocracy suggested that his research was better than mine and that I must have stolen ides from Steven Rado, such as a rotating universe.

 

But I had just told him that I was completely out of physics until late 2003 and had not even heard of Steven Rado until much later than that, (which was certainly after the publication of my ebook (late 2004) and paperback (early 2005) The Special Theory of Reality.)  Reminding him of what I had just written, and telling him that the falseness of his accusations were plain from my writings, I am disgusted that instead of doing a little research to check if he could be wrong, he continues with his false accusations and implication that his research is superior to mine!

 

Leaving out the fact that his list of people developing vortex aether theory omitted the notable and important contributions of  Bernoulli, Kozyrev and more recent figures working in the field of torsion physics such as Kibble, and that he ignores Godel as a possible influence in my ideas, the fact that he choses to continue to impune my integrity without research cannot go without refutation.

 

He would only have needed to read the first paragraph of the Preface of my autobiography for reasons to suspect the falseness of his accusations:

 

"I started working on this autobiography in 2004, shortly after I started work on my more technical book, The Special Theory of Reality, because I was then quite certain that the ideas I was putting forward must be from God, and that my whole life had been unknowing preparation for understanding and proclaiming these truths at the appropriate time."

 

That should have prompted him to further research to see what this 'unknowing preparation' might have been.  The list of contents would then have provided a huge clue via Chapter 4: Ideas, Frustrations and Near Calamities , which contained the following on page 36, right at the start of the Chapter.

 

"Everyone knows where they were when President Kennedy was assassinated. I was a boy who liked to try to think of new ideas all the time. I declared at a very young age that I had found a better way of propelling aeroplanes as I blew threw a straw, only to be told that the jet engine had already been invented. I tried to think of better ways of doing various things, the inadequacies of which annoyed me, such as toilets that would not flush properly. But the only idea I had, where I can remember exactly where I was at the time, and exactly what I was doing, was my first idea about gravity. My age at the time is a little uncertain, between 7 and 10 I think, because it was on one of many visits to Aunty Maud’s house in Weybridge.

  It was nearly time to go, and I was sitting near the piano in the living room stirring a cup of tea. On the surface of the tea were bubbles revolving around each other as they revolved around the cup. It seemed to me to be possible that the orbit of planets may also depend upon some overall, governing rotation. I often thought that this was probably just a crazy notion, but for some reason the idea has always remained vivid in my mind."

 

Now if Kemp wishes to suggest that a boy of perhaps 8-9 years old was familiar with what Godel had only recently put forward at Princeton, which he himself appears not to know, that would be obvious to most as further evidence of his ridiculous determination to have no one to add to what he thinks is perfect without help, thank you very much!

 

But if Kemp does wish to add to his knowledge via research, I offer the attached, which suggests that I was proposing curvature of motion without force, not only before Godel's rotating universe, but THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO!

 

What Kemp needs to know is that ideas are encoded in the aether as we are.  We can access them if we have the humility to put the notion of the superiority of human intelligence aside.

 

So I hope that others will join me in suggesting to Robert Kemp that the value of the NPA is the SHARING of ideas.  This process will ultimately reveal whose ideas are based on human falibility and who might have access to more dependable sources.  If Kemp actually reads my paper on relativity of this year carefully, not only should that have told him via my 'Relevant Information About the Author' that I might not of heard of Rado in 2003/4, but that I might just be onto something of huge significance to physics and the alleviation of human suffering.

 

Robert F. Beck

www.einsteins-revolution.com