[NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp

[Robert Beck]

Re:

 

Statements in red made by Robert Beck:

 

"and in an outrageous act of hypocracy suggested that his research was better than mine."

 

"he continues with his false accusations and implication that his research is superior to mine!"

 

"I have made no such accusations, claims, or determinations." Kemp March 25 2012

 

Kemp's false, unresearched accusation can be found in text I have highlighted in Blue in his email of March 23 copied before mine of March 25

 

Even after providing the evidence in my email below that the idea of a rotating universe came to me as a young child, instead of apologising he is now lying about having made such allegation that I stole the idea from Rado (note the selectivity and omission in his quoting of me).

 

Is the NPA happy for one member to behave in this way to another?

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Robert Beck

To: NPA Members Chat Email

Cc: rlk...@aol.com

Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 8:17 AM

Subject: Sharing ideas

 

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

----- Original Message -----

From: rlk...@aol.com

To: rober...@ntlworld.com

Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 1:57 PM

Subject: Re: Gravitational vortices

Robert Beck,

 

"I came across Steven Rado's work about five years ago I think, and was quite impressed, though I did not think that he has the complete answer.  But note that he agrees with me about a rotating universe."

 

"I wonder if you had read the full text of my email before opening the document attached?  That explains the progression of ideas from Descartes, and most importantly the need for sources and sinks for the aethereal whirlpools."

 

Your sentences above, are the total problem. Does God lead you to glean ideas from other people that did work before you and claim credit for the idea.

 

Steven Rado's work was published in 1994, which is much earlier than your work. In that work he described source and sinks as aether whirlpools. And he has a complete model, which you do not!

 

So you should say, "I agree with Rado about a rotating universe". And not "Rado agrees with me"; because he "documented" with time and dates his theories, which were produced before yours.

 

You might want to check with God, to see if He ordains this kind of behavior while doing physics research. You might want to be very careful, God might stop your revelations for this behavior.

 

"I think that God may well have guided me to you to test you in this respect before you are given a complete understanding of anti-gravity."

 

I think that God may well have guided me to instruct you in how to do proper research and proper reference citing.

 

Doing research by being inspired by one author, but then citing references to other authors is a form of plagarism.

 

"But I have taken that further because I agree with Einstein that a simplistic view of the aether will not do. What I was guided to in order to move on to a view of the aether that would satisfy Einstein was an understanding that curvature of motion was more logical than curvature of space"

 

You are going to need more than words to prove a distinction between "space" and "motion" and which is curving or causing curvature!

 

Best of luck moving your ideas forward.

 

Robert Kemp

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>
To: rlkemp <rlk...@aol.com>
Sent: Fri, Mar 23, 2012 1:29 am
Subject: Re: Gravitational vortices

Dear Robert,

 

I came across Steven Rado's work about five years ago I think, and was quite impressed, though I did not think that he has the complete answer.  But note that he agrees with me about a rotating universe.

 

I wonder if you had read the full text of my email before opening the document attached?  That explains the progression of ideas from Descartes, and most importantly the need for sources and sinks for the aethereal whirlpools.

 

But I have taken that further because I agree with Einstein that a simplistic view of the aether will not do. What I was guided to in order to move on to a view of the aether that would satisfy Einstein was an understanding that curvature of motion was more logical than curvature of space.

 

It had puzzled me for eight years why on putting forward this idea that people do not, as I expected, almost immediately say, "Of course, why did we not think of that, it is much more sensible than the idea that empty space can be curved." (Though note that a rotating universe provides the illusion that empty space behaves as though it is curved.)

 

The answer to this was revealed to me recently, when I seemed guided by very unusual circumstances to significant evidence that made sense of childhood memories of being in ancient Greece.  This prompted me to analyse 'paranormal' phenomena such as reincarnation, near death experiences etc. in the attached paper, and conclude that the science is there now to explain these things and thus take them out of the classification 'paranormal', subject to the variation of Newton's laws implied by curvature of motion without force.  If you look at Appendix 1 to that paper after noting the science, especially the long and thorough work of Stevenson, it means that I could well have been born with a predisposition to the idea of curvature of motion from my past life as Epicurus.

 

In early 2004 it was clear to me that curvature of motion was not revealed to Einstein because mankind was not ready for both nuclear weapons and the ability to travel the universe via an adequate understanding of antigravity.  When I received the second year prize for physics at Brooklands College in 1965, mankind was still not ready, so after learning just enough physics in two years of an engineering degree course, I was guided away from physics until 2003, when most of my Maths was long forgotten.  The purpose for that, I think, was that in order to understand anti-gravity fully, to the extent that travelling the universe becames possible, mankind first needs to realise that God exists and reveals truth, and that we must learn open-minded humility to accept that we are far from being God's most intelligent creation.

 

I think that God may well have guided me to you to test you in this respect before you are given a complete understanding of anti-gravity.

 

On the GSJ website there are several quotes that I think you should take note of: http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Essays/View/4057  Note that Einstein said,  "Since mathematics invaded relativity, I do not understand it myself any more." and Betrand Russel said, "Physics is mathematical not because we know so much but because we know so little."  Once you have understood that curvature of motion can be natural, everything else follows logically without much maths.  It is just that understanding the maths I provide re increasing values of pi is important.

 

So I strongly urge you to try to follow the logic and maths I provide in that respect, and note also that my theory explains the very nature of quantum mechanics and string theory, and to date can claim verifying evidence in favour of no less than 20 predictions covering the whole realm of physics.  Note the quote of Ralph Waldo Emerson on the GSJ website that we will know when a physical theory is correct because it will explain all phenomena.  My theory is well on the way to doing that, from neutrinos right up through astrophysics to cosmology including the paranormal and even God!  See http://www.einsteins-revolution.com/Papers/NPAthirdpaper2011.pdf above link, and other document attached.

 

I promise you that I am right, and that if you are willing to accept the possibility that my role is to guide you to a better understanding of antigravity, you will be given the patience to read my very long paper of 2007 that not only explains it but provides a huge amount of evidence in support: http://www.einsteins-revolution.com/Papers/NPA%20UConn-Storrs%20Paper%20-%20Mass.pdf 

 

Best regards,

 

Robert F. Beck

www.einsteins-revolution.com

 

PS read from page 284 of Chapter 17 on my theories page to see why time may be running out for you to do this.

.

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: rlk...@aol.com

To: rober...@ntlworld.com

Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 6:14 PM

Subject: Re: Gravitational vortices

I read through the your work. And I understand what you are writing; most of it I am in disagreement.

 

Your rationale about vortices is similar to Descartes, and you are running into the same problems that he had with his vortex theory.

 

Also your work is very short on mathematics, which means that there is no way of determing what is "Meta-Physics" and what is "Experimental Physics".

 

I do find it very hard to understand, how anyone doing research in conceptual physics, area of science, similar to what you are doing, has not come across the work of Steven Rado, Aethro-Kinematics, in their research.

 

However, I do see that you have some good ideas; so keep up the good work developing those ideas further.

 

Best

 

Robert Kemp

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>
To: rlkemp <rlk...@aol.com>
Sent: Thu, Mar 22, 2012 10:39 am
Subject: Gravitational vortices

Dear Robert,

 

The following extract from Chapter 17 of my autobiography should interest you, and perhaps tempt you to read my new interpretation of relativity that explains rotations.  See Attached

 

Best regards

 

Robert F. Beck

www.einsteins-revolution.com

 

Sepp had been very kind in taking time to read my work and offer some advice as well as the regular information.  But on looking back I found a couple of emails that I remember looking very briefly at and thinking I must come back to, but had then forgotten.  And when I looked in depth I found even more confirmations of spirals.

  In the first, Sepp had provided a link to a paper by Dr. Frederick David Tombe, called The Double Helix Theory of Magnetic Fields.  In that, Dr. Tombe, although not applying the principle of spirals as universally as I have, used exactly the same analogy that I had in comparing magnetism to two interlocking helical springs.  But his paper also told me that what he and I had both concluded was just clarification of ideas that had been around for centuries.  What I had learned at school and college suggested that Maxwell, and those since, had no real idea of what their “fields” were or how they worked.  I now know through Tombe's paper that Maxwell’s idea was in fact very similar to mine and that he, in the 19^th century, was further developing the ideas of Bernoulli in the 18^th century, who in turn was developing the ideas of Descartes in the early 17^th century, all of whom envisaged whirlpools or vortices in the aether.  Descartes, of course, also claimed as I do that God had revealed to him that the frequency of light depends on rotation.

  This time God had even guided me to research in a completely different field to make sure that I did not miss the amazing realisation that these great men of science and I were all part of the same chain of reasoning and revelation.

  But for mainstream physics, the chain was broken because relativity had not been understood correctly and because experiments to detect the aether were based on an inadequate notion of it.  An illogical view of “space-time” led most to think that there was now no need for the aether to explain forces.  They all seem to have missed, or chose to ignore the fact that in 1920 Einstein had said:

 

“According to the General Theory of Relativity

  space without Aether is unthinkable”

            (Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden, Germany)

 

My God-given interpretation of relativity showed that space-time was the motion of matter, from the largest scale observed to the smallest, with the latter – neutrinos (probably) – being the aether.

  What Tombe realised was that there needed to be sources and sinks for the aethereal whirlpools, and this is exactly what I am proposing by saying that the rings of neutrinos that comprise larger particles are exchanged as helical spirals.

  I also remembered Sepp mentioning another reference to spirals, and on looking back I found that I had commented briefly to another NPA member that Sepp’s mail of 6^th May 2007 demonstrated similarities between the work of renowned (in Russia) Russian astrophysicist Dr Nikolai A. Kozyrev (1908-83) and what I was saying.  That was just before the NPA conference, so I only had time to read that mail quickly, and again had made a mental note to come back to it, and again forgot.

  Reading the whole story about Kozyrev was very edifying.  He was an exceptional scientist, well respected in Russia but virtually unknown in the west.  Sepp’s mail was based on the writings of David Wilcock, who said this of Kozyrev:

 

“The awesome implications of his work, and of the work of all those who followed him, were almost entirely concealed by the former Soviet Union, but with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the advent of the Internet we are finally gaining access to "Russia's best-kept secret". Two generations of remarkable research by thousands of PhD level specialists has emerged from Kozyrev's seed findings, which completely change our understanding of the Universe.”

 

  But Wilcock went on to describe a dramatic event and realisation as follows:

 

“Kozyrev's abundant life took a most unfortunate and difficult turn in 1936, when he was arrested under the repressive laws of Josef Stalin, and in 1937 he began 11 torturous years enduring all the known horrors of a concentration camp. In this state, he mused deeply upon the mysteries of the Universe, paying attention to all the patterns that exist in life, wherein so many different organisms show signs of asymmetry and/or spiralling growth. From his illuminated observations, Kozyrev considered that all life-forms might be drawing off an unseen, spiralling source of energy, in addition to their normal properties of gaining energy through eating, drinking, breathing and photosynthesis.”

 

  Kozyrev carried out many experiments that verified the existence of this spiralling source of energy, and these were later verified by many other people.  They are too many to mention here but can be found on David Wilcock’s site as follows:

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&ltemid=36

  These did, however, include some very similar to those of Bruce DePalma, but they went further, showing that weight can be affected by many things as well as spin.  Some, such as vibration, heat, electricity and magnetism are dependent on spin in my theory, so Kozyrev’s work goes further than DePalma’s in verifying my theory.  And Kozyrev also concluded, as I do, that time has no meaning without motion.  He described spiralling motion as the “flow of time”, and although I prefer to avoid this expression, because it is easily misconstrued to mean that time is some “thing” that can “flow”, what he said was logical because the comparisons we call time depend on rotation, and spiralling motion is something that adds further motion to rotation.  So rotation is time, and thus rotation in motion is the flow of time.  This is how David Wilcock described Kozyrev’s realisation:

 

“As we said, the spiralling energy patterns in nature unveiled themselves to the initiated eyes of Dr. Kozyrev while in the concentration camp. His “direct knowledge” informed him that this spiralling energy was in fact the true nature and manifestation of “time.” Obviously, he felt that “time” as we now know it is much more than just a simple function for counting duration.”

 

  So it seems that just like me, Kozyrev had some sort of revelation about time.  Perhaps this is also why we both realised the huge significance of spirals.  And it seems that we both say things that satisfy Tombe’s identified need for sources and sinks, because Kozyrev compared physical bodies to sponges, being able to soak up or release the aethereal “fluid”. 

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Its an  interpretation issue:

Beck>>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. (label as [BECK2])

I suppose Beck's viewpoint on this is based on interpretation of Kemp saying

Kemp>>Does God lead you to glean ideas from other people that did work before you and claim credit for the idea. [KEMP2]

and Kemp's viewpoint was based on Beck saying

Beck>>I came across Steven Rado's work about five years ago I think, and was quite impressed, though I did not think that he has the complete answer.  But note that he agrees with me about a rotating universe. [BECK1]

Beck saying [BECK1]  gets interpreted by Kemp as [KEMP1], which gets interpreted by Beck as [BECK2].

Usual Breakdown in Communication; Tower of Babel all over again.

Roger

 

---

From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>
To: membe...@worldnpa.org; darr...@gmail.com; rlk...@aol.com
Cc: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Monday, 26 March 2012, 9:04
Subject: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp



  In the first, Sepp had provided a link to a paper by Dr. Frederick David Tombe, called The Double Helix Theory of Magnetic Fields.  In that, Dr. Tombe, although not applying the principle of spirals as universally as I have, used exactly the same analogy that I had in comparing magnetism to two interlocking helical springs.  But his paper also told me that what he and I had both concluded was just clarification of ideas that had been around for centuries.  What I had learned at school and college suggested that Maxwell, and those since, had no real idea of what their fields were or how they worked.  I now know through Tombe's paper that Maxwells idea was in fact very similar to mine and that he, in the 19^th century, was further developing the ideas of Bernoulli in the 18^th century, who in turn was developing the ideas of Descartes in the early 17^th century, all of whom envisaged whirlpools or vortices in the aether.  Descartes, of course, also claimed as I do that God had revealed to him that the frequency of light depends on rotation.

  This time God had even guided me to research in a completely different field to make sure that I did not miss the amazing realisation that these great men of science and I were all part of the same chain of reasoning and revelation.

  But for mainstream physics, the chain was broken because relativity had not been understood correctly and because experiments to detect the aether were based on an inadequate notion of it.  An illogical view of space-time led most to think that there was now no need for the aether to explain forces.  They all seem to have missed, or chose to ignore the fact that in 1920 Einstein had said:

 

According to the General Theory of Relativity

  space without Aether is unthinkable

            (Address delivered on May 5th, 1920, at the University of Leyden, Germany)

 

My God-given interpretation of relativity showed that space-time was the motion of matter, from the largest scale observed to the smallest, with the latter neutrinos (probably) being the aether.

  What Tombe realised was that there needed to be sources and sinks for the aethereal whirlpools, and this is exactly what I am proposing by saying that the rings of neutrinos that comprise larger particles are exchanged as helical spirals.

  I also remembered Sepp mentioning another reference to spirals, and on looking back I found that I had commented briefly to another NPA member that Sepps mail of 6^th May 2007 demonstrated similarities between the work of renowned (in Russia) Russian astrophysicist Dr Nikolai A. Kozyrev (1908-83) and what I was saying.  That was just before the NPA conference, so I only had time to read that mail quickly, and again had made a mental note to come back to it, and again forgot.

  Reading the whole story about Kozyrev was very edifying.  He was an exceptional scientist, well respected in Russia but virtually unknown in the west.  Sepps mail was based on the writings of David Wilcock, who said this of Kozyrev:

 

The awesome implications of his work, and of the work of all those who followed him, were almost entirely concealed by the former Soviet Union, but with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the advent of the Internet we are finally gaining access to "Russia's best-kept secret". Two generations of remarkable research by thousands of PhD level specialists has emerged from Kozyrev's seed findings, which completely change our understanding of the Universe.

 

  But Wilcock went on to describe a dramatic event and realisation as follows:

 

Kozyrev's abundant life took a most unfortunate and difficult turn in 1936, when he was arrested under the repressive laws of Josef Stalin, and in 1937 he began 11 torturous years enduring all the known horrors of a concentration camp. In this state, he mused deeply upon the mysteries of the Universe, paying attention to all the patterns that exist in life, wherein so many different organisms show signs of asymmetry and/or spiralling growth. From his illuminated observations, Kozyrev considered that all life-forms might be drawing off an unseen, spiralling source of energy, in addition to their normal properties of gaining energy through eating, drinking, breathing and photosynthesis.

 

  Kozyrev carried out many experiments that verified the existence of this spiralling source of energy, and these were later verified by many other people.  They are too many to mention here but can be found on David Wilcocks site as follows:

http://www.divinecosmos.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=95&ltemid=36

  These did, however, include some very similar to those of Bruce DePalma, but they went further, showing that weight can be affected by many things as well as spin.  Some, such as vibration, heat, electricity and magnetism are dependent on spin in my theory, so Kozyrevs work goes further than DePalmas in verifying my theory.  And Kozyrev also concluded, as I do, that time has no meaning without motion.  He described spiralling motion as the flow of time, and although I prefer to avoid this expression, because it is easily misconstrued to mean that time is some thing that can flow, what he said was logical because the comparisons we call time depend on rotation, and spiralling motion is something that adds further motion to rotation.  So rotation is time, and thus rotation in motion is the flow of time.  This is how David Wilcock described Kozyrevs realisation:

 

As we said, the spiralling energy patterns in nature unveiled themselves to the initiated eyes of Dr. Kozyrev while in the concentration camp. His direct knowledge informed him that this spiralling energy was in fact the true nature and manifestation of time. Obviously, he felt that time as we now know it is much more than just a simple function for counting duration.

 

  So it seems that just like me, Kozyrev had some sort of revelation about time.  Perhaps this is also why we both realised the huge significance of spirals.  And it seems that we both say things that satisfy Tombes identified need for sources and sinks, because Kozyrev compared physical bodies to sponges, being able to soak up or release the aethereal fluid. 

_______________________________________________
MembersChat mailing list
Membe...@worldnpa.org
http://worldnpa.org/mailman/listinfo/memberschat_worldnpa.org

[Robert Beck]

No matter what the circle, if someone accuses someone of something as bad as stealing another's ideas, and they do not apologise on learning that they were clearly wrong, then anyone for whom justice and fairness are important should object.

 

I note that you flatter me by imitation.  Are flatterers interested in anything but themselves?

----- Original Message -----

From: ROGER ANDERTON

To: Robert Beck ; NPA Members Chat Email

Cc: rlk...@aol.com

Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 9:39 PM

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp

Robert Beck.

I once gave a lecture on Zen; I thought one of its insights was about communication.

The general way of human behaviour of a person  is to associate with like-minded people into forming friendships.

Those outside that friends circle can be seen as unfriendly if they don't conform to the norms of that circle.

But different circles have different norms.

Internet means we now associate with people we wouldn't normally have associated with in pre-Internet days.

There was nothing wrong with the other Robert's behaviour as far as I am concerned; norm for me.

Far as I am concerned the respect, coutesy, humility in the form that you want it -is totally alien to some circles.

And indeed from certain atheist circles - a person declaring his belief in God would be deemed totally offensive.

Standards have changed from what they were in the old days of when Christians dominated as to what they wanted to be the norm.

Far as I am concerned looking at human race as an outsider, its just made up of different warring factions - factions that are seemingly totally alien to one another.

Do you understand that?

Roger

---

From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>

To: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Cc: rlk...@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 7:53
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp



Thanks Roger,

 

What you say is all about communication skills, and this has been a great problem for humanity in general.  From Page 50 of my autobiography:

We are all misled by the inadequacy of words all the time. Consider the word “understand”. This word may be the least understood word in regular use. When people say, “You do not understand.” there are so many shades of meaning that neither the speaker nor the hearer can be guaranteed to appreciate what is implied. Think about this. And yet the resultant unclear communication causes hurt and division. As a species in the Universe, our communication skills are not only primitive, they are positively dangerous!

But in internet communication it can be made even worse through the need for fast reading and the lack of personal interaction that engenders good manners.  Robert Kemp would never have falsely accused me in this way face to face, and the likelihood of this would probably have been reduced from reading in my autobiography that my Brother, Father and Uncle won medals for boxing, my uncle being RAF champion (Pages 13-15).

Time is also key, because Kemp replied so quickly that I can be pretty sure that he did not read what I suggested.

Bottom line: Respect,courtesy and trying to be less rushed might help avoid these problems. But a little humility also helps.

Bob Beck 

 

----- Original Message -----

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Robert Beck

As far as I can tell there was no accusation like that and its your misinterpretation of ---

Kemp>>Does God lead you to glean ideas from other people that did work before you and claim credit for the idea. [KEMP2]

Which can be further traced back to your claims like

[BECK3] >>>  I was proposing curvature of motion without force, not only before Godel's rotating universe, but THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO!

Presumably based on your beliefs in God and reincarnation, you are claiming that God told you before anyone else about this idea and so are claiming priority over everyone else.

>>>I note that you flatter me by imitation.

Is that supposed to mean you claim priority over my Zen lecture? If it is then I disagree with your interpretation.

>>>Are flatterers interested in anything but themselves?

I have no idea; are you interested in anything else?

Best wishes

Roger

---

From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>
To: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Cc: rlk...@aol.com

Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2012, 17:27

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp



[ROGER ANDERTON]

Robert Kemp

I think he means well, but he is approaching this subject via religious beliefs. And in this atheist dominated science academia – saying the things he says allows the mainsteam too easily to dismiss this subject as nonsense. Also I think his religious beliefs are non-standard and would have got him burnt as a heretic a few hundred years ago.

Best wishes
Roger

---

From: "rlk...@aol.com" <rlk...@aol.com>
To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com; rober...@ntlworld.com; membe...@worldnpa.org
Sent: Wednesday, 28 March 2012, 19:35

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp

Rojer,

[BECK3] >>>  I was proposing curvature of motion without force, not only before Godel's rotating universe, but THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO!

You are absolutely correct. That was the text that fueled my "hot button" email response to Mr. Beck.

 

Best.

[Robert Beck]

Exactly! Emotional reaction without examining the evidence, which is considerable. Some scientist!  Attached again, in case any open-minded, serious researchers are following this.  Stevenson carefully investigated over 3000 cases in many countries over 40 years. Now THAT is a scientist!

 

Here we are in the 21st century, with so called scientists behaving EXACTLY as the Church did at the time of Galileo.  Never mind the evidence, believe what you are comfortable with, and react hurtfully if anyone dissagrees with you.  And it does not matter how many suffer, because you prefer to be right.

 

And THAT is what blinds your eyes to the fact that my interpretations provides more answers, including the very nature of quantum mechanics and string theory, relativity that applies at all levels, perfect fit with particle physics, and 20 predictions with some degree of verifying evidence from neutrinos right through to astrophysics and cosmology.  How did I go from being a carpenter and tool sharpener on 2nd October 2003 to writing a ten thousand word paper in four weeks that formed the basis for all these answers and predictions?  How did I do that without a clue who Steven Rado or Godel were, or many in advanced physics that I researched AFTER writing that first paper entitled, Everything in the Universe is Dependent Upon Spin?  And yes I still have the unopened registered letter containing the paper that I posted to myself to establish date for copyright, just in case I decide to sue you for defamation.

 

If your powers of deduction are as lousy as your manners, don't even try to work out the connection to just having decided to trust God completely, why a young boy should think that the universe might be rotating, or why I can list so many similarities between Epicurus and myself.

 

Do you still wish to suggest that I steal ideas from others!  Remember, boxing is also in my blood. Though I may hurt you more by demonstrating what true Christianity is by forgiving you.

 

----- Original Message -----

From: rlk...@aol.com

To: r.j.an...@btinternet.com ; rober...@ntlworld.com ; membe...@worldnpa.org

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:35 PM

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp

Rojer,

[BECK3] >>>  I was proposing curvature of motion without force, not only before Godel's rotating universe, but THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO!

You are absolutely correct. That was the text that fueled my "hot button" email response to Mr. Beck.

 

Best.

 

Robert Kemp

-----Original Message-----
From: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>
To: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>; NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Cc: rlkemp <rlk...@aol.com>
Sent: Wed, Mar 28, 2012 11:25 am

[William Day]

This is really starting to be a BORE.
 

---

From: rober...@ntlworld.com
To: rlk...@aol.com
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:48:43 +0100
CC: membe...@worldnpa.org

[Robert Beck]

Possibly the greatest realisation in the history of modern science - that we do have eternal souls!!!

 

It is also of HUGE significance to the Christian Church and other world religions, because it means that the Council of Nicea got it wrong, obviously wrong because Christ said that John the Baptist was Eli'jah (Appendix 2 of attached), which means that with the understanding of God that science is also now providing, it can help all religions to stop nitpicking over things they did not understand and thus stop a major cause of wars.

 

----- Original Message -----

[Robert Beck]

Just like Kemp, you apply your own misconceptions without even reading what I have to say!  See abstract and start of Introduction below.

 

And of course I would be be considered as a heretic, even now, because the Council of Nicea clearly got it wrong.  They were interested in control rather than truth. See Appendix 2 of attached.

 

It is YOUR choice of what to believe that inhibits you from looking at good scientific evidence objectively.

 

Is ‘Paranormal’ a Valid Concept?

Robert F. Beck  March 2012

e-mail: rober...@ntlworld.com

 

In recent decades, serious, long term, extensive research, in fields such as reincarnation and near death experience, which has implications in related areas such as ghostly phenomena, might imply that the paranormal can claim some validity.  This paper sets out some significant evidence in this respect and looks to physics contained in my recent papers and other studies for any justification of the possibility.  The question this raises is whether the term ‘paranormal’ is appropriate in these cases, or whether perhaps like quantum mechanics, relativity and string theory the expression ‘not yet fully explained’ is more appropriate.  By definition, ‘paranormal’ is that which is unexplainable by the laws of nature.  This paper suggests that a variation of Newton’s laws of motion could take twentieth century physics and some ‘paranormal’ phenomena even out of the category ‘difficult to explain’.  Death is a natural phenomenon; birth is a natural phenomenon.  Scientific evidence strong enough to suggest a link needs to be investigated via further science, rather than by categorising the subject via the unhelpful term, ‘paranormal’, the relevance of which is discussed, or worse still, by allowing religious belief to influence such categorisation.  Evidence is presented to suggest that in some cases, what has been termed ‘paranormal’ might be explained by simple physical processes at the smallest level.

 

 

Introduction

 

The term ‘paranormal’ is defined in the free online dictionary as follows: “Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation; not in accordance with scientific laws”. ‘Normal’ is defined as “in accordance with scientific laws”.  Thus, if some phenomena can be explained by scientific evidence, which also indicates that the laws of science are incomplete, then such phenomena should no longer be classified as ‘paranormal’. 

Evidence is now presented to suggest that both conditions may now be fulfilled in respect of reincarnation and related phenomena.

In order to examine this difficult subject objectively, it is essential to set aside any prejudice or preconception that either religious or anti-religious ideas might engender.  This should go without saying in science, but experience tells me that this may not be as easy as it sounds.  Many scientist may have religious beliefs as I do, but science that I have discovered suggests that many religions, including my own, are likely to include both truth and human error (see Chapter 17 of my autobiography [ 1 ]), so I would urge consideration of this evidence if beliefs may inhibit a purely objective assessment of the scientific evidence provided.

 My own scientific education caused me to have serious doubts about the possibility or even logic of reincarnation......................

 

[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>>Just like Kemp, you apply your own misconceptions without even reading what I have to say! 

I have read what you wrote, namely such things as

[BECK3] >>>  I was proposing curvature of motion without force, not only before Godel's rotating universe, but THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO!

Nuff said

---

From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>

To: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; rlk...@aol.com; membe...@worldnpa.org
Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 8:01

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp



[ROGER ANDERTON]

Well this is getting onto religion, and we should really be dealing with science.

From normal Christianity you would be said to have misunderstood that passage. But of course you admit to being a heretic, so you want to believe whatever you want from that passage.

By normal Christianity it is understood as follows:

from http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/was-john-baptist-really-elijah

The teaching of reincarnation is against the Old Testament; therefore, Jesus was not teaching that John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnated. So, what did Jesus mean when He said that John the Baptist was Elijah? We see in Malachi 4:5 this prophecy, "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord." Jesus is referring to the prophecy concerning Elijah. We see that the coming of Elijah was in the spirit of Elijah, which is so stated in Luke 1:13-17.

[snip] So, we see that John the Baptist was in the spirit of Elijah, but not actually Elijah reincarnated.

So please stop giving your religious rants and return to science issues.

Your religious beliefs I think are of no interest to anyone on this forum other than yourself, and you are boring us.

Regards

Roger

---

From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>

To: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>; rlk...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 7:33

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp



[Robert Beck]

No religious rants at all in the attached paper, which is what I have been suggesting you read.

 

But as usual you just ignore anything that does not suit you.

----- Original Message -----

From: ROGER ANDERTON

To: NPA Members Chat Email ; rlk...@aol.com

Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 11:07 AM

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp

Well this is getting onto religion, and we should really be dealing with science.

From normal Christianity you would be said to have misunderstood that passage. But of course you admit to being a heretic, so you want to believe whatever you want from that passage.

By normal Christianity it is understood as follows:

from http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/was-john-baptist-really-elijah

The teaching of reincarnation is against the Old Testament; therefore, Jesus was not teaching that John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnated. So, what did Jesus mean when He said that John the Baptist was Elijah? We see in Malachi 4:5 this prophecy, "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord." Jesus is referring to the prophecy concerning Elijah. We see that the coming of Elijah was in the spirit of Elijah, which is so stated in Luke 1:13-17.

[snip] So, we see that John the Baptist was in the spirit of Elijah, but not actually Elijah reincarnated.

So please stop giving your religious rants and return to science issues.

Your religious beliefs I think are of no interest to anyone on this forum other than yourself, and you are boring us.

Regards

Roger

---

From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>
To: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>; rlk...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 7:33
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp



Possibly the greatest realisation in the history of modern science - that we do have eternal souls!!!

 

It is also of HUGE significance to the Christian Church and other world religions, because it means that the Council of Nicea got it wrong, obviously wrong because Christ said that John the Baptist was Eli'jah (Appendix 2 of attached), which means that with the understanding of God that science is also now providing, it can help all religions to stop nitpicking over things they did not understand and thus stop a major cause of wars.

 

----- Original Message -----

[Robert Beck]

The object is to try to discover truth of the highest possible significance to humanity via SCIENCE, which is exactly what I have done, giving really quite stern warnings that pro or anti religious ideas will get in the way of objective assessment of the science.

 

You ignore those very warnings by allowing anti-religious views to stop you even looking at the SCIENCE, and so are guilty of unscientific behaviour.

 

And of course the Church will try to find any way of defending its position.  Read the science and you may see that information about not just DNA, but ideas and emotions, can be encoded at the smallest level.  This IS the 'spirit', but the work of Stevenson leaves little doubt that some or possibly all of this information is transferred from one who has died to a new born human.

 

It is a matter of interpretation what 'actually reincarnated' should mean.  People who remember past lives as children generally lose that memory as they grow older.  So it seems that the new life has some of the 'essence' of the person who died (their 'spirit'), but also the ability to develop a new individuality.  In my case, although many points of congruence can be identified between myself and Epicurus, I feel that I have 'moved on' to be able to think differently.  He was happy to overcome the fear of death by ruling out any kind of awareness after death, whereas I find greater comfort in knowing that death is not the end for all eternity.

 

Thus reincarnation appears to be different to cloning.  Information from the DNA and personality of the dead person seems to be mixed with those inherited from parents.  So what you have quoted below is a case of religious ideas having a vague but poorly understood link to reality.  But NOW we have the advantage of amazing discoveries in SCIENCE, which is what I keep harping on, and NOT 'ranting' about religious ideas, because, and I will put this in red capitals so you dont miss it:

 

I SAY IN MY PAPER (ATTACHED AGAIN!) AND I REPEAT HERE (YET AGAIN), RELIGIOUS OR ANTI-RELIGIOUS IDEAS WILL GET IN THE WAY OF OBJECTIVITY!!!!!!!!!!!

 

So will YOU please stop ranting about religious issues and start ACTUALLY dealing with the science, whether it is as contained in the attached paper or, getting back to the point in question, did I steal Rado's idea about the rotating universe? 

 

Objective analysis of the attached, WITHOUT EITHER RELIGIOUS OR ANTI-RELIGIOUS BIAS, indicates that the possibility of my inheriting the ideas and characteristics of Epicurus is established via THOUSANDS of cases over 40 years.

 

Ignoring such evidence indicates that you put what you CHOOSE to BELIEVE ('religious' type thinking) before good science.

 

Can we PLEASE LOOK AT THE SCIENCE? And just for once, can you stop throwing up the smoke screen of religion/anti-religion?

 

And PLEASE do not be your usual childish self and say, "You started it." because whether or not I was Epicurus can now be determined via science; religion should play no part in this.  This is as clear as day in my paper.

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: ROGER ANDERTON

To: NPA Members Chat Email ; rlk...@aol.com

Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 11:07 AM

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp

Well this is getting onto religion, and we should really be dealing with science.

From normal Christianity you would be said to have misunderstood that passage. But of course you admit to being a heretic, so you want to believe whatever you want from that passage.

By normal Christianity it is understood as follows:

from http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/was-john-baptist-really-elijah

The teaching of reincarnation is against the Old Testament; therefore, Jesus was not teaching that John the Baptist was Elijah reincarnated. So, what did Jesus mean when He said that John the Baptist was Elijah? We see in Malachi 4:5 this prophecy, "Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord." Jesus is referring to the prophecy concerning Elijah. We see that the coming of Elijah was in the spirit of Elijah, which is so stated in Luke 1:13-17.

[snip] So, we see that John the Baptist was in the spirit of Elijah, but not actually Elijah reincarnated.

So please stop giving your religious rants and return to science issues.

Your religious beliefs I think are of no interest to anyone on this forum other than yourself, and you are boring us.

Regards

Roger

---

From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>
To: NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>; rlk...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 7:33
Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp



Possibly the greatest realisation in the history of modern science - that we do have eternal souls!!!

 

It is also of HUGE significance to the Christian Church and other world religions, because it means that the Council of Nicea got it wrong, obviously wrong because Christ said that John the Baptist was Eli'jah (Appendix 2 of attached), which means that with the understanding of God that science is also now providing, it can help all religions to stop nitpicking over things they did not understand and thus stop a major cause of wars.

 

----- Original Message -----

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Well I am bored; you had your time allocation; go and waste someone else's time with your religious rants that you try to pretend is science.

Roger

---

From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>

To: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 20:20

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp



[ROGER ANDERTON]

>>>>the advantage of amazing discoveries in SCIENCE, which is what I keep harping on, and NOT 'ranting' about religious ideas,

difficult to separate the science from your religious beliefs in the paper, but things like

>>It is also of HUGE significance to the Christian Church and other world religions, because it means that the Council of Nicea got it wrong,

shown to be wrong, because you cannot or have not addressed the issue of why you want interpretation done your way in preference to the norm.

nuff said

---

From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>

To: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; NPA Members Chat Email <membe...@worldnpa.org>
Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2012, 20:20

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp



[ROGER ANDERTON]

to make claims like this--

Beck>>>Council of Nicea got it wrong, obviously wrong because Christ said that John the Baptist was Eli'jah

and then claim not to be dealing with religion is just incomprehensible.

---

From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>

To: Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>
Cc: ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; rlk...@aol.com; membe...@worldnpa.org; Sepp <jo...@hasslberger.com>; MIKE EMERY <1948e...@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 31 March 2012, 6:50

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp



Oh you are absolutely right on that point Bob, and something that I was about to do as far as Roger is concerned, because I know from experience that trying to convince him of anything where HE thinks there is a religious issue is pointless.

 

And although I had decided in the past not to get into this sort of debate, or probably any kind of debate with Roger again, I did so on this occasion not to try to convince him, but to use his attacks to try to make it as clear as possible for anyone else paying attention, that on the issue of reincarnation, either religious or anti-religious ideas will get in the way of very important truth.

 

Also, if no one else is going to admonish Kemp for the unresearched allegation that I stole the idea of a rotating universe from Rado, then I am happy to let Roger's annoying intervention to give me the platform to try to make Kemp pay more attention to all sorts of evidence that demonstrate the falseness of his allegation.

 

I was not 'shouting' because I was cross, but as with the red text, trying to make the case I am making for keeping religion out of this particular subject as unmissable as possible.  The reason for that is because rather that being a 'grumpy old man' as I have been in the past, I wake up each morning with more joy than I have known since childhood, and hope that others can actually look objectively at the science and realise that it is surely clear enough from Stevenson's work on reincarnation, the work of others on near death experiences and the subject of consciousness in the universe (again the subject of serious research by Sir Roger Penrose no less!! and many others), that death is not the end.

 

Perhaps it is easier for me to now accept reincarnation, having rejected the idea since my teenage years, because I am now being reminded of the inherited memories I had as a child.  There were more that recalling the joy of some sort of realisation in ancient Greece.  And it is important to consider the 'physical' evidence Stevenson discovered about people having birthmarks that coincide with cellular damage inflicted in a past life.  I have both a birthmark on my front lower left torso and very localised back pain on the upper left torso, with the latter invoking dreams I had as a child of being stabbed or shot in the back at that point.  In the dreams the feeling I remember now vaguely was more than sharp pain, but 'tingling' as though whatever penetrated my back (perhaps emerging at the point of my birthmark) had an electrical charge.

 

I am thinking now that this may have been from the last time that I lived and died in the last world war (I was born in 1947) and was shot rather than stabbed in the back from an elevated position such as an aircraft, the bullet gaining static charge in it passage through barrel and air.

 

I will copy this to NPA chat and others, because it is important for this very significant aspect of Stevenson's research to be widely known.  So I will attach my paper yet again so that people can find the link to Stevenson's work in the references.

 

Bob Beck

----- Original Message -----

From: Robert Fritzius

To: Robert Beck

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 7:13 PM

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp

I mean that you should think about withdrawing from the confrontation. Work on things that can be fixed.  Avoid fighting battles that can't be won by either side. --- On Fri, 3/30/12, Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com> Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp

To: "Robert Fritzius" <frit...@bellsouth.net> Date: Friday, March 30, 2012, 10:44 AM  Bob do you mean from being falsely accused of stealing another's ideas, or from science that can completely change the way humanity behaves?

----- Original Message ----- From: Robert Fritzius To: Robert Beck Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 8:25 PM Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp

Robert, I encourage you to divorce yourself from this matter. Bob Fritzius --- On Thu, 3/29/12, Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Last email - emphasising that is a religious issue!

As for:

>>>Stevenson's work on reincarnation

On similar work like this in the past it has been shown by sceptics that religious types have doctored the data.

as per wiki--

quote: "Critics have questioned his research methods and conclusions, and his [Stevenson's] work has been described by some as pseudoscience."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

No matter how often the religious-types are shown to make bogus claims, they persist with their religious beliefs, and are in the delusion that their false beliefs should be science.

Beck has had his religious rant and pretended it to be science, and then when he meets criticism decides to feign 'hurt'.

If he cannot tolerate criticism then not being able to take the heat he should get out of the kitchen.

---

From: MIKE EMERY <1948e...@gmail.com>
To: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>
Cc: Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; rlk...@aol.com; membe...@worldnpa.org; Sepp <jo...@hasslberger.com>
Sent: Saturday, 31 March 2012, 12:52

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp

ROBERT BECK,  

YOU DO EXCELLENT WORK, MUCH BETTER THAN MINE ATTACHED, WHICH IS QUITE STRAIGHT FORWARD.  

THE COUNCIL OF NICEA WAS CORRUPTED IN A SUPER NATURAL MANNER  -  THAT IS ALSO CLEAR.  HAVING LIVED IN A MONASTERY, WE LEARNED VERY WELL WHAT HAPPENED. 

BLESSINGS,

[ROGER ANDERTON]

if only the foolish religious types did not carry on so.

In the Good old days the heretics were kept warm on bonfires. They did not do very well debating then with the flames.

Now being liberated by scientific enlightenment, they don't show thanks but instead seek to infect science with their nonsense.

As for:

>>>Stevenson's work on reincarnation

On similar work like this in the past it has been shown by sceptics that religious types have doctored the data.

as per wiki--

quote: "Critics have questioned his research methods and conclusions, and his [Stevenson's] work has been described by some as pseudoscience."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

No matter how often the religious-types are shown to make bogus claims, they persist with their religious beliefs, and are in the delusion that their false beliefs should be science.

Beck has had his religious rant and pretended it to be science, and then when he meets criticism decides to feign 'hurt'.

If he cannot tolerate criticism then not being able to take the heat he should get out of the kitchen.

---

From: Robert Beck <rober...@ntlworld.com>
To: MIKE EMERY <1948e...@gmail.com>

Cc: Robert Fritzius <frit...@bellsouth.net>; ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.an...@btinternet.com>; rlk...@aol.com; membe...@worldnpa.org; Sepp <jo...@hasslberger.com>

Sent: Sunday, 1 April 2012, 17:12

Subject: Re: [NPA Chat] Unresearched, false accusations by Robert Kemp



Thanks Mike, you also provide good information on this subject, if only the foolish doubters would read rather than rant.

[ROGER ANDERTON]

anyway let's look at what other religious-types have contributed to science:

No Resignation Over Faster Than Light Neutrinos In Bonobo World

By Sascha Vongehr | March 31st 2012

In the parallel world where bonobos* developed into those that took over the earth with the help of technology, they never insisted on an absolute nature of time in the first place. Einstein came along and discovered that since we use light as the most basic measurement tool, there should be a certain relativity. They experimented and confirmed that proposal. It was useful, too, and interesting, and nobody called relativity evil, so nobody made defensively a dogma out of it either. Bonobos accepted that relativity can be the emergent symmetry of an Einstein ether in case it is not fundamental all the way.

In bonobo world, they quickly advanced quantum mechanics and resolved the EPR paradox, because dogma did not hold them back, and thus they held it much more likely that relativity is fundamental all the way down! Yes, they were suspecting that relativity is fundamental for much more convincing reasons than the misinterpretations of experiments in chimpanzee world, however, the bonobos did still not make a religious belief out of it, because some bonobos have intriguing emergent relativity scenarios. In bonobo world, it was never career suicide to mention that faster than light particles could perhaps be possible and would not time travel or do any such nonsense if for example there is an Einstein ether in a larger bulk space. After all, we have recently proven yet again that we do reside inside a sort of Einstein ether.

Then one day, OPERA had measurements that clearly indicated faster than light neutrinos with high significance. The bonobos did look very carefully at the results, because they suspect that relativity is a truly fundamental symmetry. So they looked at it carefully and with strong suspicions about that these superluminal effects are merely a systematic error. But it turned out that they not only confirmed it once more but moreover found that also ICARUS and all the various neutrino experiments together indicate that the relevant excitations seem to initially jump out of the Einstein ether with huge velocities and then travel as usual after falling back into it, so there would be no energy loss from superluminal movement in the ether. This was intriguing and refuted some bonobos refutations and so of course they looked yet closer into the experiment; of course they repeated it in different ways and checked everything double and triple.

In bobonbo world, they by now know what is really going on. My guess is, they all know now that the FTL particles were a systematic error. Sadly, this here is not bonobo world, this is worse-than-chimpanzee world. Here, first absolute time was dogma, then fundamental relativity became dogma. Here, scientists primarily fight each other for influence and fame instead of trying to understand the world and perhaps improve it. Here, OPERA’s finding was immediately distorted and misrepresented almost 100% of the time especially by science bloggers, who are worse than

corporate media, which were the worst before bloggers came along.

Here in worse-than-chimpanzee world, every wrong “refutation” of the OPERA result is blown out of proportion in the name of "good science", thus supporting anti science. Here, one of the OPERA apes, Antonio Ereditato, was just pressured to resign his position, apparently because it dared to be too much of a bonobo, or perhaps other reasons – we will never know – you can never know what is actually going on in worse-than-chimpanzee world, because nothing ever is told without substantial distortions. And this is why in bonobo world, science is trusted and trustworthy, while here in worse-than-chimpanzee world, you are excused for and perhaps even should wonder if the FTL neutrinos are real and it is just that finally one of the wrong explanations for why they are a systematic error has stuck because it fits well enough.

Here in this world, science is not trusted anymore. Scientists distort even this fact and claim that worse-than-chimps distrust science because they are stupid monkeys. Actually though, it is just that more and more worse-than-chimps simply realize that they do reside in a worse-than-chimpanzee world.

--------------------

* I mean bonobos instead of the worse-then-chimps ancestors of humans. I say "worse-than" to take into account that it was less the initial difference rather than macro evolution that made us this way, which actually would have also likely ensured that bonobo-world looks much like worse-than-chimp world, but I nevertheless allow myself this artistic freedom to distort science, because after all, this is Science2.0 and we have already plenty of much worse pseusoscience here and nobody seems to mind.

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/no_resignation_over_faster_light_neutrinos_bonobo_world-88562