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

Torsion & Torsion Wave Theories

The following conversation originally arose from the discussion
of an alleged 'time-slip' experience on this thread:


http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/timeslip-at-waterloo-station.17728/

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.
Certainly is an unusual site. I have no way of assessing the science behind their analysis, but I am impressed by their thoroughness in getting original documents and data regarding the Gernon case. I am wondering if the fog described by Gernon (and also in the cases in Jenny Randles' Time Storms) would be an invariant factor in such cases. Fog figures in very few time slip cases so I am not sure that this would be a blanket theory for all time anomalies. Congratulations for finding this and giving us the link.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
overbear and derail
there comes a time when you have to employ the boards softwares fullest configurations in order to focus on the relevant interesting and discussionworthy facets of a case lest they be overtaken by bad data
 
[...]

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?

Erm, the source is you in posting number 22 in this thread, when you claim that Earth Energy (whatever that is) was identified by the MoD as torsion waves. It was that statement that got me involved in this thread, because I don't believe that the MoD has made any such identification.
Not sure where I got the RAF part of the sentence from, sorry, my mistake... Getting muddled.

Here is a link to that earlier posting.
http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/timeslip-at-waterloo-station.17728/#post-1706879

In other news, I am perfectly aware that torsion is a real scientific and engineering concept. The bit I'm asking about is torsion waves, which seems to be the made-up pseudoscience bit, and the bit that gets all these fringe new-age words tacked onto it. I am, by profession, a communications engineer. I therefore would be very excited by any real new work in waves and wave propagation.
 
...a small numbers of posters shouting I AM RIGHT AND YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT THE SCIENCE!...

... if it were to continue as it has done in other threads could easily overbear and derail the thread...

My apologies. I'll shut up now.
 
In other news, I am perfectly aware that torsion is a real scientific and engineering concept.

Yep, with you there.

The bit I'm asking about is torsion waves, which seems to be the made-up pseudoscience bit, and the bit that gets all these fringe new-age words tacked onto it.

Yep, still with you.

I am, by profession, a communications engineer. I therefore would be very excited by any real new work in waves and wave propagation.

As would I. I await with barely concealed excitement the publication in a respectable journal, of a peer-reviewed paper with strong experimental evidence for the 'torsion wave'.
 
My apologies. I'll shut up now.


I'm not directing at you specifically, severs1966. Speech remains entirely free. :)

I'm just saying that we should all aim to stay on-topic. I appreciate that there is a fair bit of pseudo-science floating around in threads on subjects like this, and people feel the need to challenge rather than dismiss. But in the other Timeslips thread things did devolve into bickering about this, which resulted in entire pages of arguing back and forth, to a point where people were no longer talking about timeslip experiences.

Posters were just heatedly trying to trounce other posters. It got a little silly. And it definitely derailed the thread.

If I keep commenting on this then I guess I'm also derailing the thread, here. :) So I'll leave it there.

But please do not feel that I was targeting you with my comments. That absolutely was not my intention.
 
Erm, the source is you in posting number 22 in this thread, when you claim that Earth Energy (whatever that is) was identified by the MoD as torsion waves. It was that statement that got me involved in this thread, because I don't believe that the MoD has made any such identification.
Not sure where I got the RAF part of the sentence from, sorry, my mistake... Getting muddled.

Here is a link to that earlier posting.
http://forum.forteantimes.com/index.php?threads/timeslip-at-waterloo-station.17728/#post-1706879

In other news, I am perfectly aware that torsion is a real scientific and engineering concept. The bit I'm asking about is torsion waves, which seems to be the made-up pseudoscience bit, and the bit that gets all these fringe new-age words tacked onto it. I am, by profession, a communications engineer. I therefore would be very excited by any real new work in waves and wave propagation.
I see how the misunderstanding arose. The MoD identified torsion as earth energy just to Reddish, or at least came up with the hypothesis that they were the same thing. And that is what Reddish confirmed. There is no doubt that they were aware of, and referring specifically to, the Russian research, because they provided him with some specific articles (presumably in translation).
"Earth energy" is the term used by dowsers to identify something that they can detect using the methods of their community. The general idea is that earth energy is modified by objects, geology, underground water or minerals, and then detected so that use can be made of the information. Reddish was concerned with straight edges, as they generated interference patterns that he was familiar with from his own work in astronomy. Many dowsers have claimed that prehistoric sites were built on and aligned with areas of high energy. Unfortunately (1) the New Age slant that dowsers now automatically apply to the subject makes it very unattractive to those of us who want to apply objective analysis; and (2) the Wikepedia entry on torsion was written by an individual who has (to say the least) biassed views about it, and who conducted a personal campaign against one of the torsion researchers who had developed a very controversial theory about it. His entry was peppered with words like "Pseudoscience" and "fraud" and was designed to deter serious interest in the topic, just as an accusation of Heresy or Apostasy by the Papacy would work against anyone (such as Galileo) who was questioning Church dogma. Unfortunately, he has been hugely successful.
As a communications engineer you might be the ideal person to look into this work objectively, with the problem that very few of the experiments conducted in Russia have been written up in or translated into English. The theories that have been put forward regarding torsion don't impress, but the experiments on torsion have generated some very interesting and provocative results. The obvious way of showing that all this work is unreliable is to attempt to replicate the experiments, but very few non Russians have done this (and they have confirmed some of the effects). It is much easier for Western critics to sit back in their armchairs and sneer. I think Reddish exemplifies the true scientific method -- when confronted with something he couldn't explain, he decided to investigate it himself. He was a real scientist.
As to why time slips tend to occur in areas of high energy/torsion, I still have no idea!
 
Certainly is an unusual site. I have no way of assessing the science behind their analysis, but I am impressed by their thoroughness in getting original documents and data regarding the Gernon case. I am wondering if the fog described by Gernon (and also in the cases in Jenny Randles' Time Storms) would be an invariant factor in such cases. Fog figures in very few time slip cases so I am not sure that this would be a blanket theory for all time anomalies. Congratulations for finding this and giving us the link.

Ya know...blabermouth here...how I get myself into these things and then to explain it all is taxing. I hope it doesn't make you look for the razor blades.

Carl, you're entirely correct in observing that fact, indeed, and so the crux of the idea in posting the reference is to first observe where nature has shown humans what is possible and then to delve in to the mystery to solve the puzzle. Bruce Gernon's flight is the only known case where someone became enveloped in this fog and who managed to escape it. At least I think that's the only known case.

The real question I have, which I think many others have, is how the two examples relate to each other. See, I think the Bruce Gernon episode has been sufficiently deciphered, and we can make sense out of it using known science and theories. The question is if it a time slip, a teleportation, a hyper-jump, because I don't think it's a time slip, but it could be precursor to a slip or related to such phenomena.

See, on one hand we think we understand enough about the physics of the Gernon flight to say that the aircraft didn't actually jump forward in time. Instead it warped ahead at a fantastic speed while encased in sort of cocoon which is a a charged ion cloud, and this isn't quite the same thing as saying there was a time slip, not in the same way as the Waterloo Station description.

However, that said, most such cases where this fog is reported end up vanishing entirely and we assume these cases involve teleportation in time, but we aren't entirely sure about this idea either. Could be the unsolved cases are people and machines which have simply been transported across the solar system or galaxy to elsewhere. So these may be two distinct and different things but which have some common relationships. Thus it's not one or the other but more of a potential lead to follow which may help to understand the time slip phenomena.

Now the fog in the Gernon case is like a magicians curtain because it's seems so mysterious and is so visibly a part of the event that we become fixated on it, but the fog is not necessary for the phenomena to occur, but if it happens and you understand why it's happening, then the manifestation of the fog becomes a kind of early warning sign about what is beginning to take place.

There's a number of things we know about the potential mechanisms behind the Gernon case which weren't officially understood previously. Pretty sure however that 'un-officially they are well understood. This having to do with secret technology dating back to at least the mid 1950's or even earlier, with theoretical ideas taking place before the last Global War. Refer here to Gary McKinnon, the U.S. Dept of Injustice, and Obamatrons reverse speech I know the secrets of UFO's. *:) So at any rate, there's a realtionship going on between fact, phenomena, and state secrets.

Now the materials of the aircraft itself are primarily aluminum, even the engine is nearly all aluminum and then there's the exhaust from the engine which is carbon waste, and as the story shows this fog is seemingly trying to attach itself to the plane. Chasing the plane, swirling round it and so forth. Well there's a reason for this of course.

Aluminum, copper, and bismuth in particular are diamagnetic materials and will repel a magnetic field. Oh sure I know you can't hold a magnet to a piece of copper and have it push against it, but try this with some spinning copper or moving copper and it's another story. Now officially the copper is generating eddy currents as a result of the passing magnetic field and which is in reverse to the polarity of the magnetic field its' encountering. This typically causes a breaking action. This is why if you drop a magnet through a copper or aluminum tube it doesn't just fall through it like any other material.

So the plane is a giant electrical conductor, but it's also diamagnetic as well. Meaning that any moving magnetic field is going to push on or repel the aircraft.

Now going back to the data of the Gernon flight there's two large swirling cyclonic like storms carrying vast electrical potential in charged particle forms of atmospheric ions. Sort of similar to horizontal tornado's but vastly larger if you will. So these are spinning electrically charged clouds. Basic electrical theory here now applies. Any moving conductor passing through a magnetic field will generate current. Conversely the opposite applies as well; any magnetic field moving across a conductor creates a charge.

So basically the gist of the idea here is that between it all there's some titanic energy zapping about in this whole story. So what next then...right? I mean lets put the pieces of the puzzle together for God's Sake.

Along comes unsuspecting Bruce Gernon, minding his own business, but his plane has acquired a charge naturally enough. Now we all have a charged state we are walking around with all the time right, and which we can alter with static electricity to shock ourselves and others with. We all have had this experience. Basically same thing only it's planes body which has a charge, and of course the carbon exhaust from the engine has other qualities which are going to play a role in the subsequent events.

We now have some sort of an outline for events but we are still missing an important part of the story of what happens to Bruce Gernon. We have yet to understand what takes place. Now comes the time slip because we are now going to have to slip back in time ourselves to two separate times in order to understand the subsequent events which overtake Bruce Gernon.

The first slip is to 1886 when this French Nobel named Mascart observed a phenomena whereby a spinning plate jumped upwards by unknown means. The second slip is to 1960 where a patent was filed for a so-called electromagnetic Magnus effect by a Dr. Marcel Pagès.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Éleuthère_Mascart
http://www.rexresearch.com/pages-g/pages.htm
French patent http://blazelabs.com/pagesbrevet1253902.pdf

Recently (Engineer) Xavier Borg at Blaze Labs Research replicated the Marcel pages experiment and gives a rational explanation for the phenomena. You can read that here. By the way, there is no such thing as an electronicmagnus effect, a magnus effect is an aerodynamic effect, not an electrical effect, all similarities aside from the potential observable phenomena.
http://blazelabs.com/e-exp10.asp

OK, so now the Herclue Poirot summation. There's a charged cloud of huge electrical potential which is moving and the passing airplane is also moving, and the charges of the cloud are opposite the carrying charge of the aircraft and so it's drawn to the plane. Think of two magnets here being attracted to each other.

The plane is itself a diamagnetic conductor. It is now going to begin generating an electromagnetic field while also containing the repulsive qualities of diamagnetism. Experiments show this diamagnetic repulsive force is about 35X the magnetic field strength of the diamagnetic materials.

As shown by the experiment replicated by engineer Xavier Borg, the analogy is the energy of the massively charged rotating clouds are passing across/around the passing aircraft, and which then generates an electromagnetic field, and because the clouds and the plane have opposed charges the resultant is a pair of like charged polarities, like two magnets pushing apart, and this then is the predominate quality of these electromagnetic fields. Additionally, the plane is diamagnetic and repels against the closing opposed electromagnetic field with force at least 35X it's generated field strength.

What keeps this plane intact then? It's the ionic cloud which is formed around the plane in a cocoon and which is especially attracted to carbon particles which also just happen to be exiting the exhaust of the engine. Now in a real
replication of a so called flying saucer this carbon would be applied directly to the hull of the vehicle. Most probably as a form of graphite paint or epoxy. The charged ions surrounding the plane are the same polarity of the aircraft and the carbon acts as binder, if you will, to attach the ion charges to the hull. A subsequent consequence of this that the repelling magnetic fields crush the ion cloud which surrounds the plane inwards, forming a protective bubble while the bubble itself becomes the analogous form of an opposed magnet being propelled along by electromagnetic forces.
 
IMHO this thread has become hopelessly tangled because multiple tangential topics (the Mr. Squirrel story; torsion theoretical stuff, and the Bruce Gernon incident) have branched off from the original topic of a specific timeslip incident involving a specific place.

Can we reach a consensus on how to untangle this thread - e.g., into a set of topically-coherent ones - so that none of these story lines gets lost among the others?
 
IMHO this thread has become hopelessly tangled because multiple tangential topics (the Mr. Squirrel story; torsion theoretical stuff, and the Bruce Gernon incident) have branched off from the original topic of a specific timeslip incident involving a specific place.

Can we reach a consensus on how to untangle this thread - e.g., into a set of topically-coherent ones - so that none of these story lines gets lost among the others?

Yes, I say; Whoa there EnolaGaia, lets slow the wagon down a bit before we go crashing off in to injun country. Who wants an arrow in the head anyways? I grock where you're coming from only you're in a big hurry.

Understand some of these things enables us to discount some and pay attention to others. There are researchers out there, I'm one them, who have invested a great deal of energy in unraveling a huge mystery. Follow the detectives credo; one by one, following each path to where it leads, eliminating each one until what is left is indubitably the truth.

In the Waterloo Station report I have to ask myself what I know and understand that has a potential relationship to the report. This torsion business probably springs from the apparent relationship with spinning energy and mass experiments and is probably the result of inventive thinking due to being imperfectly understood, just as Dr. Marcel Pages imperfectly understood what he patented..
 
Yes, I say; Whoa there EnolaGaia, lets slow the wagon down a bit before we go crashing off in to injun country. Who wants an arrow in the head anyways? I grock where you're coming from only you're in a big hurry. ...

The only thing I'm in a hurry to achieve is to hopefully prevent this thread from collapsing under its own heterogenous weight (as has happened elsewhere).
 
Yes, of course, I understand this wagon is wandering all over. My point is that is OK so long as we arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.

What we do know is that there's a way to make a kind of hyper-jump speed wise: Bruce Gernon. I tried to give a brief understanding of what is involved because we do understand the physics and electrical theory of that case. Now is that the same thing as time travel and if not can it help us to explain how such slips in time happen?

Gravitomagnetism induces space time frame dragging, meaning the space around us and not just outer space, is composed of parts of time, and that rotational mass/energy distorts the space creating a local time. Einstein called this spacetime forever screwing up peoples understanding of space and time as two separate things; space and time.

Now when I read the Waterloo station report I'm hearing a story about a couple who have somehow stumbled upon what seems like a description of a natural chronovisor, or time viewer, but which they themselves seem to have been able to simply walk through as in 3 dimensionally.

In frame dragging time is composed of individual infinite parcels or frames of time, like snapshots of life and all time is available in this theory. In theory, one could go backward or forwards stopping to resume the normal or local space time. This is my understanding of time frame dragging, but time travel or time viewing is not that simple either way. There's an additional issue.

The Waterloo time slip report suggests to me that a local disruptive gravitomagnetic field produced a momentary field accessing the light cone of Minkowski space time continuum seen in the illustration below. This means that if I'm right, then where the reporter and her boyfriend were, was inside an alternative light cone, and they were probably lucky to return back to this one. Probably just dumb luck they made it back at all.

This isn't the same thing as H.G. Wells here. You don't just go back in time like you're on a train riding a rail car. You're starting from a point in the light cone which is above the date where the reporter found themselves. Now if they began from anywhere not precisely in line with the light cones intersection for our timeline, then where they ended up at was not the same history as ours. Make any sense?

Think of this image below as following a path curved path with center point on the path. In order to access the history we know we came from, you have to begin from a position in the existing light cone which is above and directly over the location in time which is our own. You cannot vary from this at all. The time line, or curve your own light cone has followed, must precisely interdict the exact same one that you began from. Otherwise you're in an alternate time line with different outcomes.

See, if they became entangled in this by say staying too long, not finding a way out, or not reversing back to escape then when they emerged, if they emerged, it would not be where they began. Their own light cone from where they came would have shifted out of plane, out of alignment and they would be lost in space time for real.

In such a situation the world they returned to would be in another light cone. Think of each snap shot previously mentioned as having these same light cones projecting from them going forwards and backwards in time, and all the time these cones are shifting following their own past, present, and future line. This is an endlessly complex ever shifting puzzle.





thinking-about-the-future-3-scenarios-and-use-cases-pdf-28-638.jpg
 
Last edited:
I see how the misunderstanding arose. The MoD identified torsion as earth energy just to Reddish...


Dammit, I can't let this go even if it is cluttering the thread.
I came here to cast doubt on the idea that the MoD identified anything as being pertinent to torsion waves, because the MoD does not make statements linking "folk magic" concepts like dowsing and earth energy to not-established "science" like torsion waves.
I entered the discussion specifically to question the idea that the MoD has any position on any of this stuff.

My apologies to EnolaGaia and anyone else suffering under the weight of text unrelated to Waterloo Station's behaviour, temporally.
 
Dammit, I can't let this go even if it is cluttering the thread.
I came here to cast doubt on the idea that the MoD identified anything as being pertinent to torsion waves, because the MoD does not make statements linking "folk magic" concepts like dowsing and earth energy to not-established "science" like torsion waves.
I entered the discussion specifically to question the idea that the MoD has any position on any of this stuff.

My apologies to EnolaGaia and anyone else suffering under the weight of text unrelated to Waterloo Station's behaviour, temporally.

Why is this important to you? I'm asking because using a term like pesudoscience is a giant red flag pointing directly at whoever is using the term: Read Prime Suspect Here.

Most officially recognized experts don't even know what science is. They really do not understand the total description for a scientific proof because they are neither policeman, detectives, nor lawyers or judges. It's very clear what defines truth and the application of scientific methodology is no measure of truth, only a measure of predictability formed on precise procedure. All science is potentially malleble and a potential source of obfuscation and deception. Every investigator knows that.

Science begins with a hypothesis. By definition all sciences begin as pesudo-sciences. They only become sciences when they are shown to be repeatable and explainable cause and effect which can then stand up to destructive testing.

This is what so called scientists don't understand and it's called the burden of proof. Merely constructing a plausible explanation of how things work, as in so-called quantum physics, is nothing more than an unproven theoretical hypothesis for cause and effect which has not been submitted to destructive testing. It's therefore a hypothesis.
it isn't a theory which is a momentary truth since all knowledge is fluid.

To say that a theoretical hypothesis of torsion waves is a pesudoscience means nothing. Quantum theory is a pesudoscience and that's being taught at colleges and universities. I'm not sure it can even claim that much because it's essentially resorting to magical thinking to explain the unknown. Witch doctor science is more accurate.

Probably the most bamboozling mystery for the past hundred years has been the double slit experiment. There's all kinds of papers out there about this, all kinds of supposed answers from quantum physicists and other, but this paper explains it very logically with very conventional time tested knowledge.

The smack down handed out to QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) is not to be missed in the closing paragraphs.

The Double Slit Experiment Re-Explained Mahmoud E. Yousif
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...b08ae9227da986fa6.pdf?origin=publication_list
http://www.exmfpropulsions.com/New_Physics/Double_Slit.pdf
 
Last edited:
Well, it'll take me some time to begin to grasp the argument regarding the Gernon case, but I am pleased that at least someone seems to understand a time anomaly case, even if it doesn't fall into the time slip category. Incidentally, Jenny Randles does quote a number of cases where people have survived the foggy time storm with various degrees of discomfort.

The two Liverpool time slip cases involving a fog were (1) a "normal" (if there is one) time slip to the past, with a lot of interaction; and (2) a "time freeze" case, covering a wide area, arguably something different from a normal slip. Of course, the fog in those instances may have been entirely coincidental.

Gambeir is right, people basically use the term "pseudo science" as a rather ugly way of scoring points. The boundary between accepted science and pseudo science is by no means clear, and this is the rule rather than the exception with new fields of research. One day a time may come when all these contentious questions are addressed within "The Journal of Time Slip Research", and peer reviewed papers will be published showing how time slips, fog, torsion and Heaven knows what other variables are interrelated. For the time being , we have to accept that there will always be critics, "sceptics", and rather offensive persons who get some pleasure out of attacking others.

Trying to get back on topic, here is a case which may or may not have been noted previously:

https://spacetimeslip.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/the-metropolitan-line/

There aren't that many cases involving trains, actually.
 
Why is this important to you? I'm asking because using a term like pesudoscience is a giant red flag pointing directly at whoever is using the term ...(snipped)...


I'm perfectly aware of how the scientific method works. The fact that previously scorned hypotheses made the journey to firm ground does not legitimise stuff for which no evidence whatsoever has been found. The double-slit experiment, for example, is experimental evidence in need of an explanation, not an explanation in need of evidence. "Torsion Waves" appears to be just a load of made-up vaguery used to explain things that are themselves baseless. Quantum electrodynamics, in comparison, was an attempt to explain observable phenomena.

But to answer your question, the reason it is important to me is that I get annoyed by the general idea that people use large organisations (in this case, military authorities) as some sort of legitimisation of whatever they are on about. Claiming that the Ministry of Defence issued a statement explaining something as being Torsion Waves is an attempt to make them sound official and accepted by the establishment, and therefore making them seem like established, accepted science in general as opposed to a hypothesis which may, using the principles you outline, become accepted.

When challenged on this specific point, the claimant just sort of dismissively hinted that the MoD semi-secretly made this statement to a sort-of closed special research group, which is another form of annoying poor support for a claim. It's similar to the sad old trope of "I could tell you, but..."

The likely truth is that the MoD made no such statement, and that the MoD has no position at all on this supposed area of science, supportive or otherwise.

It annoys me especially because military authorities are a sort of go-to first choice for this sort of claim because there is some sort of tacit acceptance that high-budget government military organisations somehow must be doing scary super-secret research at the weird extreme edges of science, and therefore any slight hint that "they know something we don't and they are not telling" seems to automatically add credence. But the author is telling! oooh how exciting! It must be true! That sort of thing. It's a tired and very poor writing trick for misleading the credulous.
 
Back
Top