Journal of Theoretics Vol.2-4

Aug/Nov  2000  Comments



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.

[For further information please contact: M. Sue Benford,  MSBENFORD@aol.com ]


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 planet.

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 yawning.

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 biological evolutions.

Randy Shiroma  <rshiroma@pareninc.com>


Hydrogen Clouds

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 insufficient intensity. 

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 as follows:

  • 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 confirmed."

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    <ghitis@isdn.net.il>


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 humans). 

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,

Mike Gleeson   djmikegleeson@crapmail.com

*  *  *  *  

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 of science.

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. 

Sincerely,

Dr. Siepmann, Editor archive@journaloftheoretics.com .

 


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 Relation (PDF) that was published in our last issue of the Journal of Theoretics.  It puts forth some interesting ideas.

 

Dear Claude,

A few days ago you told me an idea suggested by Ross Tessien (USA) that can be  summarized in the following form:

  • mass can be transformed in space (aether)

  • exothermic reactions create space

  • endothermic reactions consume space

Then 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. The main point of my paper is equation 11, written as  dU* = dUe + dUi, meaning 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 = - c2dm. The reasons for such a conception are given in my article.

Compared 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)

                                   dU*  =  dUe  +  dUi    (eq. 11),

with each term having the dimension of an energy and not of an entropy as it is the case for equation 25.

I 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.

In 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 thermostat.

Referring 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 T 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.

Strictly 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.

In 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  and  are practically equivalent. In such a case we can write successively:

                                           TedS  =  dQ   + TedSi (eq. 26)

                                            dU*  =  dUe  +  dUi     (eq. 11)

                                            TedS  =   dH    -   dG     

                         so that        dG    =   dH   -  TdS

                 which means      dG    =    dH  -  TedS   =  c2 dm

                        (as indicated in the appendix of my article)

      Integrating, we have     ,

            which means         

                that is                .

 

Applied 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).

We 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 following peculiarities:

  • (t1, 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.

  • (ti, t2) calls 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.

  •     is 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 considering.

For the melting of ice, the thermodynamic data are approximately:

                                                     

                                                     

Entering these values in the previous equations that can be rewritten under the forms:

                                             

                                            

                                             

we obtain:

                                           

This result being negative, we see that  is negative too.  Inversely, if we consider the freezing process of water, the values  and  become respectively  and  so that we obtain for :

                                         

This 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 following:

If 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 language 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.

Transposed 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.

We have seen above that for the classical chemical reactions (i.e. the non nuclear ones) undergoing in our near universe, we have  and consequently , whether the reaction is exothermic or endothermic.

In a similar way, my present opinion is that for the nuclear reactions undergoing in our near universe, the energy released corresponds to  and consequently to , whether the reaction is a nuclear fission (as occurring in the Earth) or a nuclear fusion (as occurring in the Sun).

This 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 instrumentality.

Thank you and best wishes.  

Yours sincerely,

Jean-Louis Tane  <TaneJL@aol.com>

Journal Home Page

?Journal of Theoretics, Inc.2000  (Note: all submissions become the property of the Journal)

Ever again, glance at the Rolex in opposition to Swatch quotation not to hublot replica sale mention the simplest way this pair "Swiss Made" looks after are sold towards especially kinds of the general public for the purpose of very different points. Which means, whereas smartwatches are actually gathering popularity concerning unclaimed wrists and / or some of those carrying further general looks after simply just to rolex replica sale indicate the moment, I recently you shouldn't check out any sort of proper explanation towards suggest that the luxury follow market place might be significantly battling with typically the good discounts from smartwatches. Returning to college towards LEVEL Heuer ever again (they've been solely in fact important at present), many could launching typically the LEVEL Heuer Coupled smartwatch, except for as a means towards cure marketing wasted replica watches sale towards various smartwatches, but rather as a means towards build up towards a latest economy construct y were not beforehand active with the help of.