|Journal of Theoretics
Ignorance is Still Rampant in Science
The following is excerpted from an email from Joe
Marino about an "Exploring the Unknown" episode in which M. Sue
Benford, was due to appear on July 7th on a segment about Spontaneous Human
Combustion (SHC), however, they eliminated her interview related to the
scientific findings regarding SHC. She
is a published author whose logic and data are legitimate and have survived
peer review. SHC has been well
documented in the medical and scientific literature for over a century and
for anyone to say that it does not exist (e.g. Nickell, Shermer, Dehaan,
etc.), only proves their own ignorance.
I will let the facts speak
for themselves. Editor
“According to Benford's last conversation with the
segment producer from Triage Entertainment, they could not find a skeptic to
rebut her theories and empirical data; thus, appearing instead, was
well-known Shroud critic and CSICOP fellow, Joe Nickell, who commented,
"This is laughable to be kind . . .
They don't have a theory, what they have is an attempt to foster
mystery. To call these SHCs is just a game they're playing.
They're doing what pseudo-scientists and mystery mongers have always
done -- start with the answers. That's
not how science works."
The real tragedy of the situation is, not only did the
segment fail to present the recent empirical data about this topic (see
references below), but they missed a rare opportunity to educate and inform
viewers about this rare medical condition.
The show's producers and director, which include Dr. Michael Shermer
of Skeptic Magazine, were provided with ample evidence (including a recently
published article in Discover magazine entitled "Fire in the
Flesh," Feb. 1999) that, in fact, SHC may be an extreme version of
idiopathic thermogenic (burning of unknown origin) conditions, which are
well-documented in the medical literature.
Since this rather mundane, medical fact did not fit the
show's entertainment agenda, this portion of the segment was eliminated.
Further, beyond simply discarding a plethora of data related to the
actual identification and understanding of this phenomenon, the show
featured forensic criminologist John Dehaan who insisted that, "There's
no reason to believe SHC could ever happen."
Unfortunately, millions of viewers, some of whom may experience some
form of "fire in the Flesh" in the future, will have no valid
information on the disorder and, thus, may not seek immediate medical
treatment, which could lead to disability and possibly death.
While the show purports to provide a balance between
believers and skeptics, one can only question this when the narrator's
summary statement is, "Without cooperation from mainstream science,
self-appointed truth seekers, like Larry Arnold, will continue their fringe
investigation into the mysterious phenomenon of SHC."
For those inclined and interested in "mainstream science"
you may want to peruse two peer-reviewed articles as referenced below.
Benford MS. Idiopathic
Thermogenesis: Potential Origin and Mechanism of Action, Journal of
Theoretics. August/Sept. 1999, Vol. 1, No. 3
Benford MS, Arnold LE. Scientific Analysis of an
Artifact From a Presumed Episode of Spontaneous Human Combustion: A
Possible Case for Biological Nuclear Reactions. Subtle Energy and Energy
Medicine. Vol. 8, No. 3, 1997; 195-212."
Joe Marino <JMARINO240@aol.com>
[There were many now known faults with the Carbon-14
dating that was done in the 1980’s on the Shroud of Turin.
These included poor sample acquisition and preparation, possibly
taking cloth samples from areas that were repaired during medieval times,
and biological contamination which permeates the cloth and the samples (i.e.
mold). Below is from a press
release about MS Benford and JG Marino, who are experts on the Shroud of
Turin. Benford has had articles
published previously here in the Journal of Theoretics.]
BREAKTHROUGH IN CARBON-14 DATING OF SHROUD OF TURIN; IT'S NOT MEDIEVAL!
As in life itself, the truth of a matter is not always
easily discerned. On August 28,
2000, at the Worldwide Congress "Sindone 2000" in Orvieto, Italy,
long-time Shroud researcher and former Benedictine Monk and Catholic Priest,
Joseph G. Marino, and his partner, M. Sue Benford, R.N., M.A., will present
a paper entitled, "Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the
Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs." Although unremarkable as the title may
appear at first glance, this historic paper reveals information that
demonstrates a "patch" of material, from the 16th Century, was
skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original Shroud cloth in the C-14
sample used by the laboratories for testing.
According to calculations performed by AMS laboratory, Beta Analytic,
the world's largest radiocarbon dating service, the observed proportion of
medieval material in relationship to assumed 1st Century material, matches
precisely with the findings of the AMS Labs in 1988.
Photographs of the uncut C-14 sample, and one of the
sub samples, were blindly analyzed by a European-trained weaver who
reported, "there is no question that there is different material on
each side of the weave pattern. It is definitely a patch!"
He explained that medieval European weavers would typically try to
match the original cloth and then hand-stitch the new material into the old
such that it was invisible to all but the trained observer. But why do this?
Considering the C-14 sample had been excised adjacent to a previously
removed area of the cloth (5 ?quot; x 3 ?quot; in size), this
restoration would have been required to maintain both integrity and
aesthetic consistency of the revered woven artifact. However, the patch was not an identical match; thus, even
untrained observers can readily see the disparities between the two
materials in the C-14 sample (photos available). Two other textile labs
corroborate the weaver's observations.
Further undeniable support for this theory comes from
the statistical analysis of the dates obtained by each of the three AMS Labs
as they relate to the distance to the edge of the cloth. The angle revealed by "connecting the dots" matches
exactly with the observable angle delineating the two disparate weave
patterns in the C-14 sample.
Are these mere coincidences? Or, perhaps, does this theory vindicate the AMS Labs while,
at the same time, unravel the hidden truth about the cloth said to have
covered the crucified Christ in the 1st Century?
Without doubt, these latest findings will shake up some long-held
beliefs and reinvigorate further research into the image formation process
that could possibly have acted to create what, now appears to be, an enigma
of the first degree.
further information please contact:
M. Sue Benford,
Global Warming or Solar Cycling?
Global warming is upon us in many forms from the
media, and yet there is no substantial proof that this could not be a
normal variation in the natural pattern that occurs in terms of millions
of years rather than looking through the small time frame of data that we
currently have. The most
popular theory is that human interactions with the environment are causing
an abnormal increase in carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse
gasses. While this theory is most likely true for today’s warming, it
can not be the cause of the countless millenniums of prehistoric warming
and cooling periods that have occurred throughout the history of our
Radiation is the sustenance of life on Earth.
Combined with our atmosphere radiation is trapped, creating the
temperate environments seen today. My
speculation stems from the continuity or constant output of the radiation
from the sun.
Or IS this output constant?
Could it not be that our sun occasionally goes
through a type of "solar yawning" where it somehow outputs more
heat than normal, lasting years, decades, or even eons?
Then after all that "yawning," come the elastic
repercussions of deep coldness. After
several more eons, it slowly balances itself out and returns to a more
normal or a stable zone. One
might think of it as growing pains or aging dilemmas (whichever mode our
sun is in).
This could help explain what happened to the
dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous era.
This solar yawn may have been so pronounced and prolonged that it
eliminated many biological species, followed
by a repercussionary stage which caused the ice age during the Cenozoic
period. A furthering this
concept could possibly explain why Mars no longer has any water left
running over its surface. Eons
before the dinosaurs prevailed, Mars was most likely a wet planet covered
by thin layers of streams and rivers, which the recent findings of the
Surveyor and Pathfinder missions revealed.
A severe solar yawn may have converted the red planet into a global
dessert. Recent speculation
indicates that Mars was wet even during the dinosaur’s reign.
If this is so, then it may very well have coincided with the Mars
In conclusion, if could be shown that our sun was
accountable for the deep disturbances in all of these environments, it may
not be an easy sell to many in the public arena who see an end to this
abnormally excessive heating by merely altering man’s interaction with
the planet. Furthermore,
history shows that these periods of excessive highs and lows can last for
tens of thousands, even millions of years.
In this scenario, mass extinction remains completely unpredictable
and possibly even unavoidable regardless of the intelligence of the
Randy Shiroma <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Light, either visible or of any other kind of
electromagnetic (EM) waves, can be detected or produced by at least one
electron. This means that what we see is actually a composite of luminous
energy emitted by electrons. If our eyes could greatly augment a fragment of
an image, we would then be able to see the equivalent of technological
picture elements (pixels). We would be seeing electrons.
As hydrogen has a single electron, it follows that when
ionized, hydrogen becomes undetectable as absorption bands in the
ultraviolet-range spectroscope. Very hot hydrogen plasma is thus
undetectable. There is a form of ionized oxygen, called "O VI"
(oxygen 6), which retains 3 of its 8 electrons, being therefore detectable.
Quasars emit ultraviolet light, which is difficult to
study by telescopes on earth, because of the atmosphere and their
In the 12 May 2000 issue of Science, page
947, it was reported that the Hubble telescope was trained on a particularly
bright quasar. Its UV light spectrum indicated the presence of clouds of
oxygen VI between the quasar and the telescope. From this, it was reasoned
Hydrogen is immensely more abundant than oxygen;
therefore, where there is oxygen, there is even more hydrogen.
Those intergalactic hydrogen clouds are not
detectable by the quasar's emitted UV light --so the hypothesis
suggests-- because the gas is really in the form of ionized hydrogen
(naked protons, H+). Thus, it would appear that the so-called
"dark matter" is actually "invisible" hydrogen.
Hydrogen is detectable in very young (very distant)
intergalactic space. It appears then that with time, those clouds
condensed to the point of warming enough to reach ionizing temperatures.
If such is the case, then in several billion of years from now, it will
become apparent that those "now" detectable clouds are at this
very moment, in truth undetectable by a spectroscope placed near them.
I was gratified to read the Science article, because I
had previously wrote in The Journal of Theoretics April-May
(Vol.2, No.2) issue:
There exists yet an enormous number of
"Primal-Particle Clouds" (PPCs) that have not reached the critical
point for centripetal coalescence into protium. I posit that they are the
not-accounted-for-material that has been wrongly called "dark
matter." These clouds are too tenuous to be detected by present day
telescopes, so that they are not dark but rather transparent. PPCs
eventually will coalesce into visible hydrogen clouds. Such phenomenon ought
to be detectable, as a hydrogen cloud appears where previously there was
"empty" space with microlensing properties.
"It is not preposterous to posit that these primal
packet clouds of spinning vibrations are the source of attractive and/or
repulsive phenomena that have bedeviled physicists since Einstein's time.
If confirmed, the number of "essences" and
"dimensions" would be limited to the basic three to four dictated
by the “Geometrical Principle.?o:p>
"Even if indeed the invisible matter is made of
H+, the plausibility of my theory about a further source of hydrogen is not
invalidated, and the intuitive process behind it is validated.
Dr. Jim Siepmann, the Editor of The Journal of Theoretics, took a
calculated risk in publishing my paper. His accurate judgment has been
Author's Note: After writing the above, I did
notice a crass error in the first paragraph. The presumed PPCs cannot be
detected by spectrometry simply because they have no electrons! I
still stand, though, by the possible presence of PPCs (and their effects)
for the simple reason that hydrogen must come from some elementary source.
Another point: Isn't it strange that after the BB there remained so
much star fuel around? And all of it ionized, to boot, so that it all could
fuse all of a sudden? There is so much uncertainty in cosmology, that I feel
safe to posit: The hydrogen in the clouds is not ionized, yet its electron
is in a passive, dormant state, from the beginning of the Universe. That is
why it did not react then. It will in due time, when the net balance of fuel
tips to give the signal. The hydrogen detected in early intergalactic space
might have been in an "activated" state.
Jacob Ghitis <email@example.com>
I came across your web page while doing a little
research for a paper on the inclusion of questionable subject matter in
the secondary school curriculum. I must say that I find your definition of
science rather lacking. To say that science is, "the field of study
which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in
whole or part." is to give too much credence to the general purpose
of science. Science is
concerned with the physical world only; science has no jurisdiction or
relevance to the non-physical nature of the universe. So for example,
science is not concerned with the field of mathematics, even though
mathematics is a part of the universe (albeit a part constructed by
Also, it must be said that science is a field of
study that strives for self-consistency and is therefore constructivist;
principles of science are used to build upon other principles in a logical
manner. This is not necessarily true of many other fields of study that
portend to understand the universe (say astrology for example).
Furthermore, science is a field of study that strives for an
objective understanding of the (physical) universe. Once again, this is
not true for many other fields.
Finally, and most importantly, scientific truth
originates from experiment alone. This is the essence of science, the
definition almost. The late, great Richard Feynmann thought so, and I do
too. For all the objective, logical, self-consistent study one may do in
understanding the physical universe, if experiment tells you you're wrong,
then you're wrong. And it is
here that the difference between science and other fields is most clear.
Even a rigorous subject such as mathematics is not science; its truths do
not derive from experiment.
Your thoughts would be appreciated,
You and I probably actually agree. I agree that science deals only with the physical universe.
I did err by not specifically stating that, but that was my
intention. My more precise
definition would therefore be: "Science: the field of study which
tries to describe and understand the nature of the physical universe in
whole or part."
I also agree with you about mathematics.
Most physicists today do not agree with you and I, but rather
believe that mathematics is an essential component of the universe.
I have heard of theories so extreme that they think that matter is
nothing but mathematics. You
may enjoy the discussion that I had with one such physicist at in one of
prior issues (Link to that Comments
Section). Mathematics is more correctly a language, a way of
describing the universe around us and not a unique aspect of the physical
universe. I did write more
about this in another editorial that I did with Dr. Ghitis titled, On
Being a Thinker.
I do have to disagree with you about science being
only that which can be reproduced by experiment ("the scientific
method"). The scientific
method though is outdated as we can not use it to do a controlled
experiment on a supernova or many other aspects of the physical universe
and its functioning. We must use observational and correlative techniques instead,
which is why I have defined science in that manner. Much of science today requires techniques that are not
consistent with the scientific method, which by the way is just a man-made
definition from the 1800's. It
has served us well in the past but it can not be utilized in many fields
I always appreciate the opportunity to further define
the definitions that we use, because it can do nothing but increase the
communication of accurate data and knowledge.
Dr. Siepmann, Editor firstname.lastname@example.org
The following is the response from Jean-Louis Tane
(France) to an inquiry from Claude Rifat (Japan) that is relevant to Tane's article Evidence
for a Close
Link Between the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Einstein Mass-Energy
was published in our last issue of the Journal of Theoretics.
It puts forth some interesting ideas.
A few days ago you told me
suggested by Ross Tessien (USA) that can be summarized in the
mass can be transformed in space (aether)
exothermic reactions create space
endothermic reactions consume space
you asked me for my opinion about these proposals in the context of the
article I have recently published in the Journal of Theoretics
("Evidence for a close link between the laws of thermodynamics and
the Einstein mass-energy relation").
Herewith is my
answer to this interesting question.2dm.
main point of my paper is equation 11, written as dU* = dUe + dUi,
that the total energy dU* concerning a system is the sum of the energy dUe
exchanged with the surroundings (in the form of work, heat, etc....) and
the energy dUi, itself linked to a disintegration of mass,
within the system, according to the Einstein mass-energy relation, and
having consequently the numerical value dUi = - c
reasons for such a conception are given in my article.
with the classical expression dS = dQ/Te + dSi
(equation 25 of my paper) that can be transposed as TedS = dQ +
TedSi (eq. 26), I suggest that the correspondence take the form:
TedS = dQ
+ TedSi (eq. 26)
term having the dimension of an energy and not of an entropy as it is the
case for equation 25.
think that the conceptual difficulty classically encountered in thermodynamics comes from the fact that the existence of dUi is not
taken into account and is consequently considered as having a zero value.
In my hypothesis, this is only true for reversible processes, while
irreversible processes implicate a positive value for dUi,
related to a (very partial) disintegration of mass.
the usual conception of thermodynamics, the interpretation of a chemical
reaction is conveniently presented through the free energy G defined as G
= H - TS, which gives
. Crossing from the first to
the second relation needs that T is constant, since the differentiation of
G leads to dG = dH - TdS - SdT, which needs itself dT = 0 for giving
. The well known efficiency of this last equation implicates that T is the
temperature of the near surroundings of the considered system, so that T
means Te, and these surroundings are supposed to behave as a
to my article, and more precisely to paragraph 5.B (headed second
example), I think that the exact meaning of T is T*e, which
designates the mean temperature of the surroundings defined as
, each term referring to the surroundings. In such a context, it is not
indispensable for these surroundings to behave as a thermostat to explain
the constancy of
in the previous equations. A similar observation can be made concerning P,
which is implicitly present in the definition of G, since G = H - TS
where H = U + PV.
speaking, the difference written above between equations (26) and (11) is
not perfectly rigorous since, in the context of a chemical reaction, the
possibility for equalizing dQ and dUe implicates that the
volume remains constant. In a more general way, dQ is assimilated to dH
rather than to dUe.
order to eliminate this problem, which is of little importance for the
question in discussion, we shall consider a process such as the melting of
a mole of ice (at standard pressure) for which it is well known that
are practically equivalent.
In such a case we can write successively:
dQ + TedSi
dU* = dUe +
dUi (eq. 11)
dH - dG
dH - TdS
= dH - TedS
(as indicated in the appendix of my article)
Integrating, we have
to the melting of ice, the use of this tool is the following. Let us
consider one mole of ice whose initial (instant t1)
temperature is -20°C (= 253 K) and which is put in contact, at standard
pressure, with a thermostat whose temperature is + 20 °C (= 293 K). We
suppose that the whole system (thermostat + ice) is isolated until the
mole of ice would reach itself the temperature 393 K (instant t2).
know that the ice would melt during the heating process so that the total
interval of time (t1,
t2) can be
divided in three parts having the respective designations (t1,
ti), and (ti,
t2) and the
ti) is a
sub interval of time during which the ice remains solid, while its
temperature increases from 253 K to 273 K. The context is of the same kind
as those described in paragraph 5.A. of my article . The interpretation is
the same too, corresponding to a simple increase in entropy if we refer
to the classical theory and to an increase in energy (linked to a
disintegration of mass) if we refer to the theory I have suggested.
the same kind of commentary. The only difference is that ice is now
replaced by liquid water and that its internal temperature increases from
273 K to 293 K.
the intermediate sub interval of time, the only one corresponding to
the physical-chemical process where ice is transformed into water. Strictly
speaking, we have a phase transformation rather than a chemical reaction,
but the interpretation is the same for the purpose we are presently
For the melting of
ice, the thermodynamic data are approximately:
values in the previous equations that can be rewritten under
This result being
negative, we see that
is negative too.
if we consider the freezing process of water, the values
so that we obtain for
result remaining negative, we see that
remains negative too. The
fact that we have exactly the same numerical value for both cases comes
from the choice of the temperatures (+ 20 ?C and - 20?C are symmetrically
referring to zero, so that 293 K and 253 K are symmetrically referring to 273 K
which corresponds approximately to the zero value of
Returning to the
propositions of Ross Tessien (that have been recalled in
the first lines of the present text), my commentary is the
we agree with the idea that mass (by disintegration) can be transformed
into space, we see (under the light of the example considered above) that
the chemical reactions occuring in our universe (at least in our near
universe) implicate a disintegration of mass (
) whether they are exothermic or endothermic. Such an observation is the
simple translation, in the enlarged
of relativity, of what scientists have noted in the XIX century, after Berthelot
has suggested his theory of
"affinity" consisting in the idea that natural reactions would
be necessarily exothermic.
in the field of nuclear reactions, a first important point can be
emphasized: In books of thermodynamics, the numerical examples that are
proposed generally avoid nuclear reactions as well as in books of nuclear
physics, the commentaries concerning the reactions generally avoid details
concerning the thermodynamic interpretation. Such a situation is probably linked to the fact that the usual theory of thermodynamics does not
really take into account the possibility that an energy can be created by
disintegration of mass so that it is not a perfectly suitable tool for the
study of nuclear reactions.
have seen above that for the classical chemical reactions (i.e. the non
nuclear ones) undergoing in our near universe, we have
, whether the reaction is exothermic or endothermic.
a similar way, my present opinion is that for the nuclear reactions
undergoing in our near universe, the energy released corresponds to
, whether the reaction is a nuclear fission (as occurring in the Earth) or
a nuclear fusion (as occurring in the Sun).
is my answer to your question. I hope it can be useful for our discussions and remain very grateful to you
and your scientist correspondents (Ross Tessien of the USA, Daniel Lapadatu
of Norway, and many
others) for giving me their own opinion on the subject through your
Thank you and best
Journal Home Page
?Journal of Theoretics, Inc.2000
all submissions become the property of the Journal)