• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Torsion & Torsion Wave Theories

Carl Grove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Dec 14, 2014
Messages
1,910
Location
Bury St Edmunds
I've been thinking about this quite a lot the last couple of days and one thing that's struck me is that while very many older buildings have shifted in purpose over time (often several times), or have become preserved in the aspic of heritage and/or been turned into museums, gallerys and that kind of thing, railway stations are one of the few Victorian/Edwardian edifices that serve precisely the same purpose that they did when they were built, and are still used for millions of individual journeys virtually every single day of the year - year in year out. (I'm not suggesting that every station is in it's original form - but many are, or at least enough so to be recognisable to the original passengers.)

(Obviously there are other examples of such continuity - theatres would be one, but the footfall for such buildings is utterly tiny, compared to metropolitan railway stations.)

I just wonder if this might psychologically or, if you like, paranormally, make railway stations prone to a certain chronological looseness (or 'thin places' - as my terrifying Irish grandmother might have said). Certainly, from a psychogeographical point of view they should be rich habitats - and yet oddly, from my reading in that area, they seem to be under-represented environments; maybe we are just so familiar with the places that we unconsciously assimilate their atmosphere without thinking about it.

I am not at all a train buff, but I love railway stations - and have done since I was a kid: the whole of human life in all its variety, the contemplation of which is inexhaustible, and all that stuff. (I've mentioned recently that Marylebone Station always looks to me - especially on a misty late autumn or winter afternoon - that it is only just about clinging to the present time. And, as I've mentioned in the past, one of the oddest - but really quite nice - things that ever happened to me happened at a station.)

Yes, really good observations. Another related factor, if you have noticed my putting forward the idea that the earth's natural torsion fields are a factor in the generation of time and dimensional slips, is that if the fabric of a building today is much the same as it was, say 50 years ago, then the chances of an identical interference wave pattern happening today must be significantly higher, hence making a time slip more likely.
 
The easiest way to explain would be to refer you to my post, "Vanishing Houses and Time Slips" on ATS:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1067464/pg1

Basically, during my research at Rougham I found evidence that earth energy, which can be detected by dowsing and was identified by the MoD as torsion waves, is a major factor in generating not only time slips but a host of other phenomena. It is all highly controversial -- some people reject the whole idea, others regard it as the next major advance after the digital revolution -- but then a lot of folks would reject Fortean events anyway. And no other clear correlate has appeared (although lots of writers talk vaguely about "electromagnetic energy").
 
The easiest way to explain would be to refer you to my post, "Vanishing Houses and Time Slips" on ATS:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1067464/pg1

No mention of 'torsion field' on that link, can you please explain it to me?

Nope hang on, found it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_(pseudoscience)
Basically, during my research at Rougham I found evidence that earth energy, which can be detected by dowsing and was identified by the MoD as torsion waves, is a major factor in generating not only time slips but a host of other phenomena. It is all highly controversial -- some people reject the whole idea, others regard it as the next major advance after the digital revolution -- but then a lot of folks would reject Fortean events anyway. And no other clear correlate has appeared (although lots of writers talk vaguely about "electromagnetic energy").
So what is this earth energy exactly? Where (in what paper, web-site etc.) do the MoD discuss these torsion waves?
 
No mention of 'torsion field' on that link, can you please explain it to me?

Nope hang on, found it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field_(pseudoscience)

So what is this earth energy exactly? Where (in what paper, web-site etc.) do the MoD discuss these torsion waves?

I just checked the link and it worked OK. If you click on the Dropbox link in my post you can get answers to these questions, whch I got to in a very roundabout way! The MoD haven't openly discussed their interest in the topic but they did sponsor research by a prominent retired scientist with the immediate aim of developing a means on communication with submarines working under the surface.

The Wikipedia reference is (another) instance of someone with a personal bias using the online encyclopedia as a way of promoting their views. There is a lot of very interesting stuff on the net describing some of the Russian research, most of it based upon the work of the Soviet physicist Nikolai Kozyrev.
 
...during my research at Rougham I found evidence that earth energy, which can be detected by dowsing and was identified by the MoD as torsion waves, is a major factor in generating not only time slips but a host of other phenomena.

The MoD identified earth energy as torsion waves? As a communications engineer, I don't believe that MoD has ever stated any such identification. Can you identify an document or publication in which this identification was made? Or indeed any document or publication in which anyone from the MoD mentions torsion waves or earth energy at all?

I find it hard to believe that the entire population of communications or broadcast engineer or even radio amateurs have missed such a document. A detectable wave that propagates at a speed not limited by the speed of light would cause international front-page excitement.

BTW don't confuse the mostly-mythical torsion wave with the completely understood circularly-polarised electromagnetic wave (i.e. radio wave).
 
The MoD identified earth energy as torsion waves? As a communications engineer, I don't believe that MoD has ever stated any such identification. Can you identify an document or publication in which this identification was made? Or indeed any document or publication in which anyone from the MoD mentions torsion waves or earth energy at all?

I find it hard to believe that the entire population of communications or broadcast engineer or even radio amateurs have missed such a document. A detectable wave that propagates at a speed not limited by the speed of light would cause international front-page excitement.

BTW don't confuse the mostly-mythical torsion wave with the completely understood circularly-polarised electromagnetic wave (i.e. radio wave).
^this^
 
The MoD identified earth energy as torsion waves? As a communications engineer, I don't believe that MoD has ever stated any such identification. Can you identify an document or publication in which this identification was made? Or indeed any document or publication in which anyone from the MoD mentions torsion waves or earth energy at all?

I find it hard to believe that the entire population of communications or broadcast engineer or even radio amateurs have missed such a document. A detectable wave that propagates at a speed not limited by the speed of light would cause international front-page excitement.

BTW don't confuse the mostly-mythical torsion wave with the completely understood circularly-polarised electromagnetic wave (i.e. radio wave).

The information regarding the Ministry of Defence comes initiially from an interview science writer John Gribbin conducted with Vincent Reddish: Gribbin, J. What lies beneath. Focus, July 2004. There is a lot of material on the subject online, mostly Russian or US surveys of the research. I have no doubt that the MoD would deny any interest in torsion fields officially, but Reddish states explicitly that this is what they said when they asked him to extend his studies. After that he apparently wrote two books on the subject, which I am trying to obtain. Some good sources are:
Nachalov, Theoretical basics of experimental phenomena:

http://amasci.com/freenrg/tors/tors3.html

Vesperman, Torsion Field Physics and Torsion Field Physics (pdf available online), and

Quantem, Torsion Fields.

I too would have imagined that the topic would have received wider attention but certain people have made it their aim to portray the subject as something "mostly mythical" as you say. As a communication engineer you are probably the best placed person to conduct a thorough survey and assessment of the evidence so far presented, and if you do I will be most interested in your results!
 
http://amasci.com/freenrg/tors/tors3.html

Vesperman, Torsion Field Physics and Torsion Field Physics (pdf available online), and

Quantem, Torsion Fields.
Not peer reviewed though. All the material I can find is secondary or not peer reviewed and mainstream references describe this notion as unproven at best and pseudo-science at worst. Sorry, nothing holds water here, for the moment at the very least.

I too would have imagined that the topic would have received wider attention but certain people have made it their aim to portray the subject as something "mostly mythical" as you say. As a communication engineer you are probably the best placed person to conduct a thorough survey and assessment of the evidence so far presented, and if you do I will be most interested in your results!

@Carl Grove you've raised the subject, I'd say it's up to you to put together a coherent argument for the existence of such fields, as opposed to a bunch of vague references, not kick it back to those with some expertise to prove it for ourselves.
 
Not peer reviewed though. All the material I can find is secondary or not peer reviewed and mainstream references describe this notion as unproven at best and pseudo-science at worst. Sorry, nothing holds water here, for the moment at the very least.



@Carl Grove you've raised the subject, I'd say it's up to you to put together a coherent argument for the existence of such fields, as opposed to a bunch of vague references, not kick it back to those with some expertise to prove it for ourselves.

That sounds reasonable, but suppose I did put forward such an argument: I'm sure you would be the first to complain that as I am a non physicist, I am not qualified to do so! If you had read the articles I cited -- and they are just a radom sample -- you would have seen that there has been some very interesting work done. You may be sceptical about the findings, but they certainly aren't "vague"! I'm sure the theoretical basis of these findings will be argued over for a long time -- I'm not interested in theory. Of course it's "not proven" -- "proof" is not a scientific concept anyway. All I would say is that there is a network of connections between dowsing, the force or energy underlying dowsing, time slips and other odd phenomena, and the construction of ancient stone age sites. If you want to wait until sufficient physicists take it seriously enough to start peer reviewed journals and no doubt learned associations as well, please yourself. I still think that someone who is a specialist in communications would be the best man for the job.
 
... there is a network of connections between dowsing, the force or energy underlying dowsing, time slips and other odd phenomena, and the construction of ancient stone age sites.
i have endless patience for far-fetched and fathomless stories which cant currently be explained, and i tend to start out by giving them the best credence i can muster ... but i struggle with statements like this, which to me are exercises in circular logic to the extent that they can have no actual meaning ... no disrespect intended
 
i have endless patience for far-fetched and fathomless stories which cant currently be explained, and i tend to start out by giving them the best credence i can muster ... but i struggle with statements like this, which to me are exercises in circular logic to the extent that they can have no actual meaning ... no disrespect intended
I disagree with you on the first and last points... :D
 
i have endless patience for far-fetched and fathomless stories which cant currently be explained, and i tend to start out by giving them the best credence i can muster ... but i struggle with statements like this, which to me are exercises in circular logic to the extent that they can have no actual meaning ... no disrespect intended

Logic has nothing to do with it. I am talking about facts, or if you prefer "alleged facts." If you think the evidence doesn't support them, fair enough. I have summarised much of it in my Rougham report, and more has emerged since. As for "can have no actual meaning", I find that comment mystifying.
 
yeah, what i mean is, and i see it a lot, enough that i would remark on it ... something inexplicable gets "explained" as being caused by something equally inexplicable which is in turn caused by something with no recognised grounding which is related to lots of other inexplicable things we ve heard about, as if thats an answer, or helps us in some way with the original mystery

no disrepect but thats how i read that part of your post
 
yeah, what i mean is, and i see it a lot, enough that i would remark on it ... something inexplicable gets "explained" as being caused by something equally inexplicable which is in turn caused by something with no recognised grounding which is related to lots of other inexplicable things we ve heard about, as if thats an answer, or helps us in some way with the original mystery

no disrepect but thats how i read that part of your post

I see what you mean now. I am not trying to explain anything -- I wish I could! -- but I am pointing to some interesting correlations that I have come across in the course of my research. No, earth/torsion energies don't explain time slips but they seem to be correlated with them. All I am doing is finding pointers that might one day lead to an explanation. I am going where the evidence takes me, rather than trying to force everything into some favourite theoretical framework, which I think is where a lot of researchers go astray. I hope that makes it plain!
 
The information regarding the Ministry of Defence comes initiially from an interview science writer John Gribbin conducted with Vincent Reddish: Gribbin, J. What lies beneath. Focus, July 2004. There is a lot of material on the subject online, mostly Russian or US surveys of the research. I have no doubt that the MoD would deny any interest in torsion fields officially, but Reddish states explicitly that this is what they said when they asked him to extend his studies. After that he apparently wrote two books on the subject, which I am trying to obtain. Some good sources are:
Nachalov, Theoretical basics of experimental phenomena:

http://amasci.com/freenrg/tors/tors3.html
Vesperman, Torsion Field Physics and Torsion Field Physics (pdf available online), and

Quantem, Torsion Fields.

...As a communication engineer you are probably the best placed person to conduct a thorough survey and assessment of the evidence so far presented, and if you do I will be most interested in your results!


Well, it took a while, but I am saddened to report that the "surveys of research" and especially the wall of text accessible via that link are exactly what I was dreading. A big pile of unconnected bits and bobs of real science, sciencey-sounding stuff, unproven one-person hypotheses, and made-up bollocks, all conflated as if they are a "field of study". The two complementary-polarised circularly-polarised laser beams, for example, are an excellent example of what I cited previously: Rotationally polarised electromagnetic emission, which is entirely founded in fully-understood physics and which has nothing whatsoever to do with "torsion fields". The way they behave is then a good example of sciencey-sounding, but made up observations that are not repeatable experiments, asserted as fact.
A blur of mixed-together fact, confusion, mistakes and bollocks. Add on a "tifosi" of unqualified fans and you end up with what Richard Feynman calls "Cargo Cult Science"

The only "real" aspect of torsion fields seem to be people misunderstanding the rotating polarisation of plane waves emanating from a rotating object, which is something that happens (for example) in orbiting satellites that spin to obtain positional stabilisation. Bullshit merchants will slap on a few references to the property of "spin" in subatomic particles, the principle of rotational momentum or moment of inertia, the principle of torque, and some real work on special interpretations of Maxwell's equations (work that happened and looked exciting but went nowhere, as is the nature of science - mistakes are the foundation of the path to truth). Even more sadly, all the seriously-funded "proper" research seems to have been outed as scams, embezzlement of research funding, and other actually dirty/illegal things which have led to ruined reputations and people being fired from their posts.

To gain a picture of this, have a quick peek here:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Torsion_field

Quoting vintage Soviet or latter Russian "studies" is a popular, but tired trick in the west to provide a serious-sounding backdrop of support for cranks and quackery. The difficulty that a non-Russian-reader has in looking these papers up makes it tempting to assume that this stuff is respectable, peer-reviewed science. Sadly, Russia is absolutely brimming with nutters writing "scientific papers" and always has been; space travel is especially laden with loonies, to the point where at least 2 minority religions have arisen from the colossal popularity of the Soviet (and later Russian) Space programme. This is problematic to the point of being parodied. A superb example is an art installation (and a book about it) called "The man who flew into space from his apartment", which you might like to look up. It's hilarious.

Vesperman's "Torsion Field Physics" is not evidence or research, but a commentary on other people's so-called studies, which appears to be basically a series of vague descriptions of practically undocumented, unrepeated research with unconfirmed, unrepeatable results, incomplete descriptions of methods, incomplete results, cognitive bias and what appears to be second-hand reports of sciencey-sounding "work" that may be totally made-up.

"Torsion Fields" by Quantem (is this an author?) is something I couldn't find. is it a publication? Is it real?

The whole "Torsion Fields" thing is a superb example of made-up science, which appears so complicated to the layperson that they don't feel able to discount it by looking at what has been published. Some real phenomena seem so bizarre, but are successfully described using arcane and difficult mathematics combined with a dash of "black art" that utter bollocks like Torsion Fields seem eminently believable in comparison, and get accepted.
Take tropospheric radio wave propagation, for example. Read a few articles about it and it starts to look like a load of horse doo, made up by amateur scientists and back-yard shed-based "inventors" armed with string, toy telescopes and poorly-remembered pub conversations with that bloke in the corner who seems to know stuff. Yet it is actually a completely real and very well-documented, solidly-understood phenomenon that is merely hard to predict (in the way that meteorology is).

Sorry, but there appears to be nothing at all published anywhere that supports whatever this so-called theory is actually supposed to be. A lot of articles are just referencing each other, leading to no actual research or results. You can pop this onto the shelf alongside Zero Point Energy and Cold Fusion.
 
Well, it took a while, but I am saddened to report that the "surveys of research" and especially the wall of text accessible via that link are exactly what I was dreading. A big pile of unconnected bits and bobs of real science, sciencey-sounding stuff, unproven one-person hypotheses, and made-up bollocks, all conflated as if they are a "field of study". The two complementary-polarised circularly-polarised laser beams, for example, are an excellent example of what I cited previously: Rotationally polarised electromagnetic emission, which is entirely founded in fully-understood physics and which has nothing whatsoever to do with "torsion fields". The way they behave is then a good example of sciencey-sounding, but made up observations that are not repeatable experiments, asserted as fact.
A blur of mixed-together fact, confusion, mistakes and bollocks. Add on a "tifosi" of unqualified fans and you end up with what Richard Feynman calls "Cargo Cult Science"

The only "real" aspect of torsion fields seem to be people misunderstanding the rotating polarisation of plane waves emanating from a rotating object, which is something that happens (for example) in orbiting satellites that spin to obtain positional stabilisation. Bullshit merchants will slap on a few references to the property of "spin" in subatomic particles, the principle of rotational momentum or moment of inertia, the principle of torque, and some real work on special interpretations of Maxwell's equations (work that happened and looked exciting but went nowhere, as is the nature of science - mistakes are the foundation of the path to truth). Even more sadly, all the seriously-funded "proper" research seems to have been outed as scams, embezzlement of research funding, and other actually dirty/illegal things which have led to ruined reputations and people being fired from their posts.

To gain a picture of this, have a quick peek here:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Torsion_field

Quoting vintage Soviet or latter Russian "studies" is a popular, but tired trick in the west to provide a serious-sounding backdrop of support for cranks and quackery. The difficulty that a non-Russian-reader has in looking these papers up makes it tempting to assume that this stuff is respectable, peer-reviewed science. Sadly, Russia is absolutely brimming with nutters writing "scientific papers" and always has been; space travel is especially laden with loonies, to the point where at least 2 minority religions have arisen from the colossal popularity of the Soviet (and later Russian) Space programme. This is problematic to the point of being parodied. A superb example is an art installation (and a book about it) called "The man who flew into space from his apartment", which you might like to look up. It's hilarious.

Vesperman's "Torsion Field Physics" is not evidence or research, but a commentary on other people's so-called studies, which appears to be basically a series of vague descriptions of practically undocumented, unrepeated research with unconfirmed, unrepeatable results, incomplete descriptions of methods, incomplete results, cognitive bias and what appears to be second-hand reports of sciencey-sounding "work" that may be totally made-up.

"Torsion Fields" by Quantem (is this an author?) is something I couldn't find. is it a publication? Is it real?

The whole "Torsion Fields" thing is a superb example of made-up science, which appears so complicated to the layperson that they don't feel able to discount it by looking at what has been published. Some real phenomena seem so bizarre, but are successfully described using arcane and difficult mathematics combined with a dash of "black art" that utter bollocks like Torsion Fields seem eminently believable in comparison, and get accepted.
Take tropospheric radio wave propagation, for example. Read a few articles about it and it starts to look like a load of horse doo, made up by amateur scientists and back-yard shed-based "inventors" armed with string, toy telescopes and poorly-remembered pub conversations with that bloke in the corner who seems to know stuff. Yet it is actually a completely real and very well-documented, solidly-understood phenomenon that is merely hard to predict (in the way that meteorology is).

Sorry, but there appears to be nothing at all published anywhere that supports whatever this so-called theory is actually supposed to be. A lot of articles are just referencing each other, leading to no actual research or results. You can pop this onto the shelf alongside Zero Point Energy and Cold Fusion.
^this^
*bows to @severs1966*
 
Well, it took a while, but I am saddened to report that the "surveys of research" and especially the wall of text accessible via that link are exactly what I was dreading. A big pile of unconnected bits and bobs of real science, sciencey-sounding stuff, unproven one-person hypotheses, and made-up bollocks, all conflated as if they are a "field of study". The two complementary-polarised circularly-polarised laser beams, for example, are an excellent example of what I cited previously: Rotationally polarised electromagnetic emission, which is entirely founded in fully-understood physics and which has nothing whatsoever to do with "torsion fields". The way they behave is then a good example of sciencey-sounding, but made up observations that are not repeatable experiments, asserted as fact.
A blur of mixed-together fact, confusion, mistakes and bollocks. Add on a "tifosi" of unqualified fans and you end up with what Richard Feynman calls "Cargo Cult Science"

The only "real" aspect of torsion fields seem to be people misunderstanding the rotating polarisation of plane waves emanating from a rotating object, which is something that happens (for example) in orbiting satellites that spin to obtain positional stabilisation. Bullshit merchants will slap on a few references to the property of "spin" in subatomic particles, the principle of rotational momentum or moment of inertia, the principle of torque, and some real work on special interpretations of Maxwell's equations (work that happened and looked exciting but went nowhere, as is the nature of science - mistakes are the foundation of the path to truth). Even more sadly, all the seriously-funded "proper" research seems to have been outed as scams, embezzlement of research funding, and other actually dirty/illegal things which have led to ruined reputations and people being fired from their posts.

To gain a picture of this, have a quick peek here:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Torsion_field

Quoting vintage Soviet or latter Russian "studies" is a popular, but tired trick in the west to provide a serious-sounding backdrop of support for cranks and quackery. The difficulty that a non-Russian-reader has in looking these papers up makes it tempting to assume that this stuff is respectable, peer-reviewed science. Sadly, Russia is absolutely brimming with nutters writing "scientific papers" and always has been; space travel is especially laden with loonies, to the point where at least 2 minority religions have arisen from the colossal popularity of the Soviet (and later Russian) Space programme. This is problematic to the point of being parodied. A superb example is an art installation (and a book about it) called "The man who flew into space from his apartment", which you might like to look up. It's hilarious.

Vesperman's "Torsion Field Physics" is not evidence or research, but a commentary on other people's so-called studies, which appears to be basically a series of vague descriptions of practically undocumented, unrepeated research with unconfirmed, unrepeatable results, incomplete descriptions of methods, incomplete results, cognitive bias and what appears to be second-hand reports of sciencey-sounding "work" that may be totally made-up.

"Torsion Fields" by Quantem (is this an author?) is something I couldn't find. is it a publication? Is it real?

The whole "Torsion Fields" thing is a superb example of made-up science, which appears so complicated to the layperson that they don't feel able to discount it by looking at what has been published. Some real phenomena seem so bizarre, but are successfully described using arcane and difficult mathematics combined with a dash of "black art" that utter bollocks like Torsion Fields seem eminently believable in comparison, and get accepted.
Take tropospheric radio wave propagation, for example. Read a few articles about it and it starts to look like a load of horse doo, made up by amateur scientists and back-yard shed-based "inventors" armed with string, toy telescopes and poorly-remembered pub conversations with that bloke in the corner who seems to know stuff. Yet it is actually a completely real and very well-documented, solidly-understood phenomenon that is merely hard to predict (in the way that meteorology is).

Sorry, but there appears to be nothing at all published anywhere that supports whatever this so-called theory is actually supposed to be. A lot of articles are just referencing each other, leading to no actual research or results. You can pop this onto the shelf alongside Zero Point Energy and Cold Fusion.
Two comments:
1. You haven't actually mentioned any of the reported findings regarding torsion, merely criticised (no doubt with justification) the theoretical models of the phenomenon that have been presented. I am well aware of the critical entries for torsion in Wikipedia and "Rational wikipedia." But they too are directed, not at the practical research that has been done, but at the theoretical ideas of just a couple of the Russian researchers. On this basis, by association, they convince the reader that the whole idea must be wrong. I have carefully refrained, in all my references to the phenomenon, from giving support for any particular theory, in particular the Physical Vacuum model (which I don't find particularly convincing). I am only reporting on correlations that I have come across and that I think could be significant.
2. I have come across two articles by a trained physicist, Claude Swanson, who has looked very thoroughly at the Russian (and non Russian) torsion research, most of it derived from the work of Kozyrev. He is more interested in the biophysical implications, however, and has a New Age slant that we might probably both find uncomfortable. But he has given access to a lot of basic references so I think these might give you a better idea of the basic findings. PDFs can be downloaded from:

http://journals.sfu.ca/seemj/index.php/seemj/article/view/425

and

http://www.synchronizeduniverse.com/IUFO OUTLINE v23.pdf
 

I'm sorry if this seems a hostile response, but that first link is something I would be very embarassed to be associated with.

I'm including it here:

quote...
The new sciences of biophotons and torsion fields provide a bridge between two views of life: the old twentieth century view of an organism as a chemical machine and the emerging view of life as communication and energetic flows. In the new paradigm, DNA is the source of biophotons, governing cellular machinery, communications and behavior. It governs growth and metabolism, with high energetic efficiency. The coherent biophoton field forms a hologram throughout the body, telling each DNA molecule where it fits in the overall blueprint, and governing cell differentiation and specialization.

With the creation of each biophoton there is also a torsion wave. Torsion is a widespread and important form of radiation which couples particle spins together, and propagates through space as a twisting wave in the metric. It results in a variety of new phenomena. These effects have been studied extensively for the past forty years, at multiple research centers in Russia. Their most important conclusion is that this torsion force is exactly the same as subtle energy.

Equations can predict torsion behavior, and inventions and practical devices have been developed using it. Although the biophotons carry electromagnetic energy and are contained mostly within the body, torsion waves easily penetrate tissue and form the primary holographic pattern outside the body. This includes the subtle structure of the aura and chakras, and also the long range signals used in distance energy healing.

The torsion field has been shown to couple to consciousness. It is a higher dimensional field, describing additional degrees of freedom absent in Western science today. Torsion fields obey Yang-Mills gauge equations, can alter the rate of time and produce stable energy forms without the need for matter. These fields can explain many kinds of “spiritual” phenomena ignored so far by mainstream physics. Torsion appears to be the missing ingredient which makes it possible to develop a true science of consciousness and understand the nature of life. Hence it may truly be called the “life force.”

...unquote

This is one of the most delightful examples of "sciencey-sounding bollocks" that I have read in recent times. And some of it is outright lies: "inventions and practical devices have been developed using it". No they haven't. Quack medical boxes might have been, but nothing actually practical. In addition, the "new science of biophotons" is not a new science, it's "new made-up bollocks", with no experiments having established any facts whatsoever. And as for "The torsion field has been shown to couple to consciousness", no it hasn't.

The second link is another typical problem; it starts in well-founded science and repeatable observations, and then yet again slips into unproven hypotheses presented as facts, "supported" by unrepeatable experimental outcomes. As with the amusing cold fusion episode, this falls down pretty fast when you look into the principle of repeatability. If one scientist does some experiments and gains very impressive results, that's nice. When his best mate writes in a journal "yeah I tried it too, and came out the same", that's not really independent testing of outcomes. When nobody else is able to reproduce the results, it starts to become obviously false.

Getting back to the original point that led us up this garden path, it was asserted that the RAF or Ministry of Defence or something had issued statements based on "Torsion Fields". This didn't happen.



I'm going to have to put my foot down here and assert that "Torsion Fields" is not an accepted area of science anywhere. The only bit of it that has any basis in reality are the well-established areas of particle spin, angular momentum and rotating polarisation. None of these support anything asserted as being a "torsion field" and including them in articles about torsion fields does not establish the believability of those articles.

Of course, there is no shortage of fringe, "new age" science-like talk in this world; some of it leaks into Fortean studies. This "Torsion field" nonsense is nothing to worry about, it is just more of that stuff. And let's all realise that there is an inexhaustible supply of yet more pretend science yet to come.
 
I know I've been out of the forteantimes loop for a while but I have missed the people here while my attention has been focused upon quite unconventional themes. Perhaps more later on that, but I wanted to make a few comments, and the reason frankly is that many people here are very solidly grounded in convention, which is always a good anchor to have for someone like myself, and yet this convention can lead to stagnation. Nowhere is this more true than in organized structures like formalized education and the experts whom reside there.

Peer review has it's merits, and then it has it detractors; for these educational institutions are accessories of convention, which are then subjects of the ruling paradigm, and this paradigm holds powers over titles and positions. This is not unlike blackmail in this respect. There are people who have spoken out about many flaws and the inability to freely express their views from within the confines of these supposedly hallowed grounds after being liberated by retirement and secure pensions.

So now lets take up this idea of torsion and biophotons briefly.

Torsion is a way to express force as a physical product of twist and rotation: Not something unknown or invented. Torsion doesn't have to be the result of mechanical action in a traditional sense. Torsion as it's being applied to the idea that all cells are like blank slates awaiting programming is evidently being connected with a creative concept of biophotons as messengers (*Data), and it is an interesting way of approaching the inexplicable with a hypothesis of cellular regeneration or creation force. Torsion is probably not the term I would be applying here myself.
http://journals.sfu.ca/seemj/index.php/seemj/article/view/425

Generally speaking, the concept being forwarded is similar to notions of quanta popping in and out of existence. Those that stay become something tangible, and those that leave vanish back in to the Sea that Paul Dirac seems to have been responsible for creating.

Now these quanta arrive here via some means. The idea is that they arrive via Solitrons, or cosmic strings connecting to elsewhere, which is where we do not know. So the idea here is that these torsion fields being spoken of are probably really cosmic strings, which are vortices or tornado like spinning tubes of the unknown which connect themselves with our world/dimension.

Now I found this particular PDF very useful in imagining this cosmic connection because of the visualizations given.
FALACO SOLITONS: Cosmic strings in a swimming pool
https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0101/0101098.pdf

Today, and if you search in scholarly articles in google, you're gonna find a load of research papers surrounding the word "Solitons/Soliton." Many of these papers are centered around brain communication. The idea here being that the mind is maybe not actually a biologically originated field, and that rather the mind is external and the brain a receptor or receiver for cosmic strings. In other words, you too may be a kind of biobot unawares where you're actually living.

This is actually a very ancient idea, that you're not the light bulb but rather the light in the bulb; that life is an experiment having a beginning and ending: That you're the hand in the glove, not the glove, and when you die you're not dead, just the body is dead.

Now possibly this brief may help to gather the gist of what these people are trying to explain, and while their approach may be a little flawed and dated, the general ideas are being investigated, usually under other pretexts but with a specific purpose of discovery, and if this concept of brain, body, and then mind is valid, then, the issue becomes one of how to interdict the quantum communication system....don't ya see? That's the real quest. The real prize. It behooves us to be willing to entertain the unconventional for good reason.

PS: Will try to see you all tomorrow. Seriously I think about you all quite a bit.
 
Last edited:
As was the case in the Time and Dimensional Slips thread it does seem that these threads do often get somewhat bogged down by arguments over the notions of peer reviews, pseudo-science and need to scientifically quantify and explain people's experiences in the most minute of detail.

With the odd assumption that if it can't be scientifically quantified it cannot happen. So it must be nonsense.

I personally am far less interested in trying to come up with some kind of unified theory of 'how and why Timeslips happen' than I am of hearing people detailing an experience they had. And creating an environment into which they can feel comfortable to do that without throwing some kind of scientific formulas at them. :)

I hope I'm not alone here in thinking that establishing detail and context from relaxed discussion on these kind of experiences is far more productive. Letting people discuss similar experiences, or local knowledge of the area it occurred in.

These heated arguments between posters aiming to argue the toss over scientific theory can become quite overbearing, sometimes derailing entire pages of discussion as the argument continues.

I don't personally find that very helpful. It's trying to apply scientific proof to something which by its very nature is broadly unscientific.

The only conclusive way any of us are going to be able to be sure timeslips are plausible is if we were able to reproduce another person's experience or experience something ourselves. And I personally feel that all this arguing over scientific principles just serves to discourage others from sharing experiences.
 
... These heated arguments between posters aiming to argue the toss over scientific theory can become quite overbearing, sometimes derailing entire pages of discussion as the argument continues.

I don't personally find that very helpful. It's trying to apply scientific proof to something which by its very nature is broadly unscientific. ...

I get your point, but ... It's also fair to point out that such debates over scientific principles almost always begin in response to citation of decidedly non-scientific but scientific-sounding paranormalist hand-waving (commonly for profit or celebrity).

Over the last couple of decades BS artists have prospered by peppering their expositions with jargon from (e.g.) quantum theory's or cosmology's outer reaches so as to appear more credible.

This sort of stuff serves to distract as 'chaff' or 'noise' just as much as discussion directed toward presumptively explaining paranormal incidents in light of current scientific thinking.

One of Fort's central themes was that science doesn't (and / or arguably can't ... ) explain certain phenomena. IMHO he certainly wasn't arguing for adopting concepts from the same sciences that can't explain anomalies in the first place and then trying to leverage these borrowed tidbits to make blatant speculation seem tangible.
 
I'm sorry if this seems a hostile response, but that first link is something I would be very embarassed to be associated with.

I'm including it here:

quote...
The new sciences of biophotons and torsion fields provide a bridge between two views of life: the old twentieth century view of an organism as a chemical machine and the emerging view of life as communication and energetic flows. In the new paradigm, DNA is the source of biophotons, governing cellular machinery, communications and behavior. It governs growth and metabolism, with high energetic efficiency. The coherent biophoton field forms a hologram throughout the body, telling each DNA molecule where it fits in the overall blueprint, and governing cell differentiation and specialization.

With the creation of each biophoton there is also a torsion wave. Torsion is a widespread and important form of radiation which couples particle spins together, and propagates through space as a twisting wave in the metric. It results in a variety of new phenomena. These effects have been studied extensively for the past forty years, at multiple research centers in Russia. Their most important conclusion is that this torsion force is exactly the same as subtle energy.

Equations can predict torsion behavior, and inventions and practical devices have been developed using it. Although the biophotons carry electromagnetic energy and are contained mostly within the body, torsion waves easily penetrate tissue and form the primary holographic pattern outside the body. This includes the subtle structure of the aura and chakras, and also the long range signals used in distance energy healing.

The torsion field has been shown to couple to consciousness. It is a higher dimensional field, describing additional degrees of freedom absent in Western science today. Torsion fields obey Yang-Mills gauge equations, can alter the rate of time and produce stable energy forms without the need for matter. These fields can explain many kinds of “spiritual” phenomena ignored so far by mainstream physics. Torsion appears to be the missing ingredient which makes it possible to develop a true science of consciousness and understand the nature of life. Hence it may truly be called the “life force.”

...unquote

This is one of the most delightful examples of "sciencey-sounding bollocks" that I have read in recent times. And some of it is outright lies: "inventions and practical devices have been developed using it". No they haven't. Quack medical boxes might have been, but nothing actually practical. In addition, the "new science of biophotons" is not a new science, it's "new made-up bollocks", with no experiments having established any facts whatsoever. And as for "The torsion field has been shown to couple to consciousness", no it hasn't.

The second link is another typical problem; it starts in well-founded science and repeatable observations, and then yet again slips into unproven hypotheses presented as facts, "supported" by unrepeatable experimental outcomes. As with the amusing cold fusion episode, this falls down pretty fast when you look into the principle of repeatability. If one scientist does some experiments and gains very impressive results, that's nice. When his best mate writes in a journal "yeah I tried it too, and came out the same", that's not really independent testing of outcomes. When nobody else is able to reproduce the results, it starts to become obviously false.

Getting back to the original point that led us up this garden path, it was asserted that the RAF or Ministry of Defence or something had issued statements based on "Torsion Fields". This didn't happen.



I'm going to have to put my foot down here and assert that "Torsion Fields" is not an accepted area of science anywhere. The only bit of it that has any basis in reality are the well-established areas of particle spin, angular momentum and rotating polarisation. None of these support anything asserted as being a "torsion field" and including them in articles about torsion fields does not establish the believability of those articles.

Of course, there is no shortage of fringe, "new age" science-like talk in this world; some of it leaks into Fortean studies. This "Torsion field" nonsense is nothing to worry about, it is just more of that stuff. And let's all realise that there is an inexhaustible supply of yet more pretend science yet to come.
OK, first of all I wouldn't subscribe to the more New Agey stuff that Swanson comes out with occasionally, and that you quoted. I am really only concerned with the experimental evidence that Swanson summarises quite well, I think. You manage to ignore that evidence completely, and don't even refer to it except with a casual and unjustified dismissal. If Swanson is correct, about 8o-odd scientists have been looking into Torsion in Russia, most since the 80s, and if you think they are all deluded or frauds -- well, that's your opinion. It does seem to be an accepted field in Russia, if nowhere else, at least to the same extent.

I haven't come across any statements said to have been issued by the RAF or MInistry of Defence that you refer to; can you give a source for this? According to Gribbin, the Ministry of Defence contacted Reddish directly after he had self published The D Force, and told him about the Russian research and asked if he would continue his dowsing studies. What makes this interesting is that dowsing is an acceptable area of research in Russia, but none of those researchers have connected dowsing with torsion -- someone in the MoD is clearly ahead of the game. Reddish said that their concern was that torsion waves could be a useful way of communicating with submarines underwater. He continued his work as requested and by using grinding machines he was able to confirm that the dowsing response was triggered by the torsion emitted by the spinning discs. He also put together a small group and was able to show that the strength of the dowsing response varied with season, i.e. with the relative position of the earth and the sun, which he was able to duplicate in the lab by varying the positions of the two discs. He also confirmed that by using a crude Morse code he could transmit simple messages over a short distance using torsion. He was also able to confirm some of the Russian findings -- e.g. that aluminium could reflect 50% of the torsion wave and that certain types of cling film acted as a torsion polariser. However, he was very sceptical about the Shipov theory.

So I feel that a blanket dismissal of torsion per se would be unwise -- yes, like any new and exotic field, it will attract its share of crackpots, New Agers and unreliable persons, but the basic facts seem to have been accepted. And so far, to my knowledge, no other variable (e.g. electromagnetism) has been specifically linked with time slip cases. I think this is a connection worth pursuing.
 
As was the case in the Time and Dimensional Slips thread it does seem that these threads do often get somewhat bogged down by arguments over the notions of peer reviews, pseudo-science and need to scientifically quantify and explain people's experiences in the most minute of detail.

With the odd assumption that if it can't be scientifically quantified it cannot happen. So it must be nonsense.

I personally am far less interested in trying to come up with some kind of unified theory of 'how and why Timeslips happen' than I am of hearing people detailing an experience they had. And creating an environment into which they can feel comfortable to do that without throwing some kind of scientific formulas at them. :)

I hope I'm not alone here in thinking that establishing detail and context from relaxed discussion on these kind of experiences is far more productive. Letting people discuss similar experiences, or local knowledge of the area it occurred in.

These heated arguments between posters aiming to argue the toss over scientific theory can become quite overbearing, sometimes derailing entire pages of discussion as the argument continues.

I don't personally find that very helpful. It's trying to apply scientific proof to something which by its very nature is broadly unscientific.

The only conclusive way any of us are going to be able to be sure timeslips are plausible is if we were able to reproduce another person's experience or experience something ourselves. And I personally feel that all this arguing over scientific principles just serves to discourage others from sharing experiences.
I agree completely, and as I have reiterated often I only mention torsion because (a) Reddish found it was the same as the "earth energy" of the dowsers; and (b) in many cases time slip cases have occurred in areas with high levels of earth energy. I am very tired of having to answer people who seem shocked by what seems to me to be a useful lead for someone to take up some time in the future maybe.
 
As was the case in the Time and Dimensional Slips thread it does seem that these threads do often get somewhat bogged down by arguments over the notions of peer reviews, pseudo-science and need to scientifically quantify and explain people's experiences in the most minute of detail.

With the odd assumption that if it can't be scientifically quantified it cannot happen. So it must be nonsense.

I personally am far less interested in trying to come up with some kind of unified theory of 'how and why Timeslips happen' than I am of hearing people detailing an experience they had. And creating an environment into which they can feel comfortable to do that without throwing some kind of scientific formulas at them. :)

I hope I'm not alone here in thinking that establishing detail and context from relaxed discussion on these kind of experiences is far more productive. Letting people discuss similar experiences, or local knowledge of the area it occurred in.

These heated arguments between posters aiming to argue the toss over scientific theory can become quite overbearing, sometimes derailing entire pages of discussion as the argument continues.

I don't personally find that very helpful. It's trying to apply scientific proof to something which by its very nature is broadly unscientific.

The only conclusive way any of us are going to be able to be sure timeslips are plausible is if we were able to reproduce another person's experience or experience something ourselves. And I personally feel that all this arguing over scientific principles just serves to discourage others from sharing experiences.

An experienced investigator will recognize the value of all thought while critically examining individual experiences for what they can reveal. Now really when we are discussing time it's important to realize we are talking about theories or hypothesis of action.

Almost all concepts of time involve spinning vortex's of energy/matter: Matter and energy being one and the same. The nature of reality is undoubtedly linked to time so there's no such thing as solid science here. There's solid scientific theory supporting some concepts but many of these are already questionable ideas founded on theories over a hundred years old.

I believe there is good evidence to believe in time slips and these evidences are supported by conventional ideas about the possible reasons for such slips in time.

Bruce Gernon's epic flight is a matter of historical record for example. It seems to clearly validate the idea of time slipping. Now I've spent a lot of time on a subject which has a good deal in relation to the explanation of this phenomena, and which is best explained at this site linked below.

This site is very secretive. In order to read the article you have to first go to this link below. Then scroll to the right to documents and find the one entitled; "The Science Behind Bruce Gernon's Flight." No copy and past to the page directly works. It will take you to a blank page instead.

http://www.spacewarpdynamicsllc.com/

It may not be clear to you immediately why I'm recommending this link and article, but like all things, once you become exposed to enough information which is founded upon ideas and experimental results, then the reason will manifest itself more clearly.

PS: This is a little known and evidently difficult to find site. Don't be fooled by the somewhat amateurish appearance of some of their proposals. These are dedicated people which have been working on this for long time. This site has been around for a while and I think they have solid ideas founded upon conventional ideas about time, reality, and physics.
 
Last edited:
...This site is very secretive. In order to read the article you have to first go to this link below. Then scroll to the right to documents and find the one entitled; "The Science Behind Bruce Gernon's Flight." No copy and past to the page directly works. It will take you to a blank page instead. ...

Or just click on this direct link:

http://www.spacewarpdynamicsllc.com/blank-zb9d2

... which does work (for me, at least) if you copy and paste the text into your URL specification box.
 
My point remains that the majority of this page has now devolved from discussing a personal experience, similar experiences of others, and the history and geography of the place where it had occurred to a small numbers of posters shouting I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE SCIENCE! STOP BEING WRONG. LISTEN TO MY HYPOTHESIS, DAMNIT!?!!

It's a tangent. A small amount of it is genuinely relevant to the two experiences which this thread has centered on. But a lot of it is simply an argument. And one which if it were to continue as it has done in other threads could easily overbear and derail the thread.
 
Back
Top