E/G Communications and Quantum Physics

For a discussion of the science of Townsend Brown, his experiments and his ideas.

E/G Communications and Quantum Physics

Postby Paul S. » Thu Jun 15, 2006 4:18 pm

In the past week, along with all the other things that have been going on on the main website and here in the forums, there have been a couple of very important posts that, for the first time since all this started nearly a year ago, actually start to put a NAME on some of the ideas that we have been dancing around.

Simply stated: Something Townsend Brown discovered, which we're calling "Electro-Gravitic Communications," is actually a means of communicating with "other dimensions."

There, I said it. Again.

The subject has come up, and the point more or less nailed, in a thread that started here:

http://forum.ttbrown.com/viewtopic.php?p=1558#1558

A corollary thread also appears here:

http://forum.ttbrown.com/viewtopic.php?p=1585#1585

So you can see, the idea has been percolating in the background for some time. Now we need to deal with it seriously -- and, if we can, scientifically.

What I'd like is everybody's help in coming up with a reasonable explanation of what we're talking about in terms of contemporary science.

For example: I was recently read (somewhere... I am still looking for the exact source/quote) that "Quantum theory allows for the existence of other dimensions" -- or words to that effect.

Is that true? Where in Quantum Theory does is say that?

Whether or not there's anything about "added dimensions" in fundamental quantum theory, I do know that its latest variation, "String Theory" actually requires more than the four temporal dimensions that constitute our physical "reality." String Theory calls for something like 10 or 11 dimensions.

Did any of you see the PBS/Nova documentary based on Brian Green's book, "The Elegant Universe" ? There is a very interesting scene in the documentary (but not in the book) where Green simulates using a "Gravity Phone" to call somebody... in another dimension! (who answers and says "I thought I told you not to call me during 'The Simpsons'...").

What do you think Brian Green would say if he learned that some kid in Ohio came up with just such a device based on a discovery he made more than 80 years ago!?!?


So, can we have a clear, grounded discussion of these questions? I want to toss around some answers to this question:

"If accepted theories of physics, i.e. quantum mechanics or Stirng Theory provide for the existence of dimensions hidden beyond our physical world, then how can we make a case that Townsend Brown's "Electro-Gravitic Communications" devices provide the means for communicaitng with those hidden dimensions?"

I am no expert on Quantum Mechanics (is anybody?). I know only what I've read about "String Theory." But it seems to me that rooted somewhere in some forms of generally accepted current-day scientific theory, there is a solid foundation for what we are saying Townsend Brown discovered, built, and operated, and now is the time to get those 'scientific ducks' in a row, to make the case that the rest of the world is just now catching on to what our Dr. Brown knew all his life.

Anybody care to suggest how we do that? Clearly... concisely, and without going off on verbal tangents, please. The object here is to be understandable -- and, ultimately, persuasvie.

Anybody?

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

Other dimensions.

Postby Janoshek » Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:16 am

I dont know what Brian Green would say but I think other dimensions exist at other frequencies. Such as no two objects, existing at the same frequency, can occupy the same space at the same time. But two objects that exist at different frequencies can.
Janoshek
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:14 pm

Re: Other dimensions.

Postby Paul S. » Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:12 am

Janoshek wrote:I dont know what Brian Green would say but I think other dimensions exist at other frequencies. Such as no two objects, existing at the same frequency, can occupy the same space at the same time. But two objects that exist at different frequencies can.


And how exactly to objects acquire different frequencies?

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

questions

Postby Mark Culpepper » Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:56 am

Seems to me what we have been saying here (correct me Paul, if I am wrong) is that for a stretch of time Townsend Brown seemed to get the standard type of "informational download" that he somehow could accept .... but that was something that has been happening through the centuries. Nothing terribly different there for people who believe in "Divine inspiration".

But we are not talking about that, are we? We are talking about an actual device that Dr. Brown possibly developed? Based on his inspired work? Just the way Farnsworth took his inspiration and turned it to television ... Townsend Brown also seemed to have "inspirations" that led him to an APPLIED SCIENCE.

And since that applied science seems to be no where in recognized sight, Paul is faced with proving that its out there. Fifty years ago no one would have even thought it possible but now the theory is catching up and I think what Paul is saying is .... if its so black a development that we can't even talk about it .... perhaps we can get around that simply by asking people familiar with TODAYS TECHNOLOGY if such a development is THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE.

I frankly don't think that Paul has to prove the existance of the "old time original e/g radio" to prove his point. All he needs is to start a good discussion of what people think NOW. It the consensus is that NOW it might be possible ...... the arguement would be .... what is possible NOW was also possible THEN.

Have I got it about right?

Oh by the way, out of four classes Lisa got three blues and a red (second place) she wants Linda to know that all the leg yielding proved valuable even on this older experienced horse. Just an update. Now goodnight. Mark C.
Mark Culpepper
The Dean
 
Posts: 655
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:02 am

How did objects acquire frequencies?

Postby Janoshek » Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:11 pm

One can try asking the Grand Organizational Designer, commonly known as GOD, that question. But I think that since he gave us an excellent computer between our ears he wants us to use it. And I'm not being sarcastic. In the past the popular mindset was that the sun and planets orbit the earth People were thinking inside of the box and most still are.

History demonstrates that there are always a few who dare to go outside of the box, despite popular beliefs. T.T. Brown was one of these.

If I remember the PBS series correctly, Brian Green said that calculations indicated eleven dimensions and we live in four of them. That leaves seven that we cant see. Time is one of the four and you cant see time unless you attribute it to evenly spaced events. Just because we can't see something does'nt mean its not there. One also has to consider that our bodily eyes only see a fragment of the electromagnetic spectrum, a grain of sand compaired to the sea. So if a person saw something appearing solid go through a solid wall without leaving a trace they would believe they were having a hallucination or it was magic, based on the inside of the box mindset, instead of considering the possibility and how it was done.
Janoshek
Space Cadet
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:14 pm

vibrational levels

Postby Elizabeth Helen Drake » Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:50 pm

Always lovely to see your name on a post Janoshek.

And I think that youhave brought up some valuable information here which we need to study further and maybe ask others to wade in on with their opinions.

I noticed that St Arey has just entered the forum again with the news that he in fact did know Townsend Brown and had many conversations with him. And I noted also in looking into the messages that St Arey had also mentioned vibrational levels, so I am hoping maybe to get the two of you talking on this subject?

I know next to nothing about this but I have been told that Dr. Brown mentioned this subject in one or two of his lab notebooks. Perhaps he also shared some information with you St. Arey .... (can I just call you Saint without being too politically incorrect? Or offending someones religious beliefs .... everytime I type St. Arey thats what comes to my mind, so can I just stick you with that title? There was a TV show called the Saint .... with the slipping halo .... think we could use that?) just say no, if not.

The forum is all yours guys. I think what Janoshek says about going through walls because you are a different "frequency" has ALOT of merit. I just don't know much about the science behind that thought. Help! Elizabeth
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
 
Posts: 1740
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

Postby Chris Knight » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:48 am

Not being an expert in quantum mechanics by any means, but I was thinking of something.

I seem to remember that Brown considered the speed of gravity to be nearly instantaneous, if not so, making the communication apparatus particularly valuable as far as long distances were concerned.

If I remember correctly, he, and I share this view with a number of people, felt that gravity was more like a nuts and bolts part of the time / space continuum rather than electromagnetic energy, such as light, which seems to "ride" on the continuum rather than being a part of it. Since the path of a linear wave/packet of light, for example, is controlled by the ambient gravitational field.

My thought was that perhaps, if there are a number of dimensions, that there would be a common denominator throughout all of them (makes sense since all of our universes would all be essentially in the same space in a different dimension). If gravity were a common carrier, or denominator, perhaps by adjusting the electromagnetic frequency on a gravitational carrier, then one could communicate across dimensional barriers.

Just a thought,

Andrew
Chris Knight
Keeper of the Flame
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

PFAB Unit

Postby twigsnapper » Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:06 am

Anybody guess what that stands for?

Parachute Field Artillery Batallion.

Just means that if you bust loose from a transport .... on the way down, sort of like being in a hot air Balloon .... you can't really tell where the wind is taking you or if in fact it is really blowing because you are IN IT.

Which is what I suspect our relationship with "aether" is and I can appreciate your thoughts Andrew. Interesting and fruitfull excahges, I am sure.

Twigsnapper
twigsnapper
Revered Elder
 
Posts: 839
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:25 pm
Location: mobile

Quantum Wackiness

Postby Paul S. » Wed Jun 21, 2006 2:46 pm

Chris Knight wrote:Not being an expert in quantum mechanics by any means, but I was thinking of something.


You're certainly not alone there, Andrew. I think even the so called "experts" are baffled by quantum mechanics. What did Fred Alan Wolf -- aka "Captain Quantum" say? "If you study study this stuff and it doesn't make you wacko, you haven't understood a thing." Or words to that effect.

I seem to remember that Brown considered the speed of gravity to be nearly instantaneous, if not so, making the communication apparatus particularly valuable as far as long distances were concerned.


Well now, that's precisely the point we're discussing here. We're going to be locking horns with some pretty big names in the field if we take that position, so I want to make sure we're planting our flag in solid soil.

If I remember correctly, he, and I share this view with a number of people, felt that gravity was more like a nuts and bolts part of the time / space continuum rather than electromagnetic energy, such as light, which seems to "ride" on the continuum rather than being a part of it. Since the path of a linear wave/packet of light, for example, is controlled by the ambient gravitational field.


Boy, that is REALLY well said. Following your analogy, it's like saying that gravity is the threads on the bolt, rather than the nut that gets threaded on to it. An inherent part of the fabric/ substance of the continuum.

If gravity were a common carrier, or denominator, perhaps by adjusting the electromagnetic frequency on a gravitational carrier, then one could communicate across dimensional barriers.


Are you suggesting that gravity can be 'modulated' like an RF carrier? I can see that. But how does that translate into a transdimensional carrier?

I hope that doesn't sound dense,. I am trying to understand better, so that I can also... explain.

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

The "ether" and "The Structure of Space"

Postby Paul S. » Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:01 pm

twigsnapper wrote: ... if you bust loose from a transport .... on the way down, sort of like being in a hot air Balloon .... you can't really tell where the wind is taking you or if in fact it is really blowing because you are IN IT.


Is that like jumping off a boat into a rip-roaring current? If the reef wasn't flying by beneath you, how would you know you're in a current? And if it's dark, like in a night dive, how would you know at all?

Which is what I suspect our relationship with "aether" is and I can appreciate your thoughts Andrew. Interesting and fruitfull excahges, I am sure.


Now then, I may be getting ahead of myself here, but as long as we're talking about the "ether," I'm going to drop something from Dr. Brown in here that speaks directly to this discussion.

It is from a paper he wrote in 1942 entitled "The Structure of Space." And in the opening paragraphs, he speaks directly to what we're talking about here in the context of conventional wisdom that persists to this day:

"It can be pointed out that the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect a flow of the ether does not necessarily indicate the non-existence of the ether. The results of the Theory of Relativity may be obtained with or without an ether.

"For certain phenomena, it is desirable and almost necessary to assume the existence of an ether in order to evolve a satisfying explanation. An example is the force of graviatation, particularly the electro-gravitational effects.'

He seems to be saying exactly what both Andrew and Twigsnapper are saying, that 'gravity' is somehow part of the fundamental 'fabric of the cosmos" and that the presence of something akin to the 'ether' embodies that force.

That is also an echo of something that came up earlier, i.e. Dr. Brown (and others) assertion that 'gravity is a "push," not a "pull".'

That still doesn't explain how that force can be modulated, how information can be transmitted from one end of the universe to the other instantaeously, or how gravity is the means by which we communicate with other 'dimensions."

But it does raise the possibility that some of the conventional wisdom that has dominated physics for the past 100+ years is, how shall we say, 'not entirely representative of the facts.' Once we get past the restraints of some of those common misconceptions, perhaps we can start thinking creatively again.

In other words, as Janoshek also points out in his earlier post, we first have to realize that we're IN a box before we can start deliberately thinking "outside" of it...

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

WONDERFUL

Postby Victoria Steele » Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:36 pm

GREAT, GREAT, GREAT, GREAT. All you have to do Paul (ALL? DID I SAY ALL?) IS SHOW US THE BOX THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN.

THEN LEAVE IT TO US TO SEE OUT OF IT. SORT OF THOSE PONIES IN THE FIELD. FIRST WE HVE TO RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS A GATE! AND THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN THIS PEN ALL THIS TIME! VICTORIA
Victoria Steele
Mysterious Redhead
 
Posts: 932
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 7:06 am

Re: WONDERFUL

Postby Paul S. » Wed Jun 21, 2006 3:40 pm

Victoria Steele wrote:THEN LEAVE IT TO US TO SEE OUT OF IT. SORT OF THOSE PONIES IN THE FIELD. FIRST WE HVE TO RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS A GATE! AND THAT WE HAVE BEEN IN THIS PEN ALL THIS TIME!


Reminds me of something I saw a long time agon on hat or a T-shirt: "I'm their leader... which way did they go?"

Somehow, we'll all march out of here together...

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

Postby Chris Knight » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:30 am

Paul,

Can gravity be modulated? If you accept the premise that for every electromagnetic effect their exists a gravitational compoentn, then yes, gravity can be modulated.

Electromagnetism, light, radio, electricity, and so forth, are merely changes in polarity and strength of a field. Alternating current (at 60 Hertz in house wiring) means that the electrons are forced in one direction to a maximum, return to a "stationary" or their original position (for simplicity), and then are forced in the opposite direction to a maximum before returning to the original location. SO all that electricity you are paying for is just Edison getting the electrons in your wiring to vibrate.

In any case, the simplest example of gravitational wave modulation would be the instantaneous creation of a body of mass that increased in mass to a maximum mass and then decreased in mass to zero again. That would give you one-half of a complete wave with the frequency double the time for the mass to increase from zero to maximum mass and back to zero.

If there is a gravitational component for every electromagnetic effect, then every electromagnetic antenna should be producing a gravitational effect. HOWEVER, there's a big difference between lighting a puddle of oil on fire with a match, and taking that same effect and putting it in a diesel locomotive engine. Antennas are designed to maximize the transmission and reception of electromagnetic waves. Unless you have an antenna designed to maximize the transmission of the gravitational component and the necessary equipment on the receiving end to interpret those signals, then you're just plain out of the game.

Andrew
Chris Knight
Keeper of the Flame
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Remember the "Current Wars" ?

Postby Paul S. » Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:57 am

Chris Knight wrote:SO all that electricity you are paying for is just Edison getting the electrons in your wiring to vibrate.


Uhhh... wasn't that Tesla?

Unless you have an antenna designed to maximize the transmission of the gravitational component and the necessary equipment on the receiving end to interpret those signals, then you're just plain out of the game.


So, can you correlate that to the fan/loudspeaker apparatus, or is that a stretch? Was that a "gravitational antenna," or is the gravitational antenna something else that we really haven't talked about yet?

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

Postby Chris Knight » Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:23 am

Yes, it was Tesla. Our power company in Orange County is So. Cal. Edison. I wonder what the world would be like if it were So. Cal. Tesla.

As far as correlating the fan / loudspeaker with gravitational communication, that is my understanding. The system is an attempt to maximize the electromagnetic gravitational (EMG) component. However, there is also the whole area of the solid antennas - the "sensors."

There seems to be both an open (fan / loudspeaker) and closed (sensor) design applicable to several of the effects he discovered.

Andrew
Chris Knight
Keeper of the Flame
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Next

Return to The Science of Townsend Brown

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron