Torsion Field Question from a total newbie

In summary, the conversation discusses a book on torsion fields and the author's belief in their existence. However, the person asking for opinions is skeptical and thinks the statements in the book sound like pseudoscience. They mention that the author has a Ph.D. in Applied Physics and the person who challenged them to read the book is a professor emeritus from Stanford. However, they also mention that the author's statements sound like nonsense and they are looking for opinions on whether it is plausible or just gibberish. The other person advises not to waste time debating with these types of authors and suggests asking for published papers in mainstream journals as proof. The conversation ends with the person asking for opinions on a scale of 1 to 10
  • #1
Neiby
11
0
I'm reading a book where the author is trying to make a point about torsion fields. I really don't know what that even is, but I know that you all do. :-) What I'm asking is for you to read a couple of paragraphs and let me know if this even sounds plausible or if it is pseudoscientific gobbledygook.

Here's an example:

"Many scientists now believe that all substances posses their own torsion field. Torsion waves can travel at speeds in excess of the speed of light and there is no loss of speed as the waves spread. [...] In torsion fields, like charges are attracted to each other, which is the opposite of what happens in electromagnetism, where like charges repel and opposites attract."

And another:

"A gravitational field is identical to the longitudinal spin polarization of the physical vacuum, while a torsion field is identical to the transverse spin polarization of the physical vacuum."

"It is possible to block torsion fields by some artificial materials; for example, two crossed sheets of ordinary polyethylene film. This plastic is made in such a way that the polymers form an aligned unidirectional structure, which results in a molecular spin ordering. The outcome is the generation of a collective torsion field. Two crossed polyethylene films are transparent to most of the radio frequency wave spectrum, but they can block torsion radiation."

Here's another interesting one:

"Torsion radiation of a physical material will result only in the alteration of its spin state. However, an alteration of the spin state of the physical vacuum can result in changes to the polarization angle of a light beam."

Or how about this:

"If a torsion field is superimposed on a gravitational field in a certain area, it may result in the reduction of gravity in that area."

I admit to not understanding the slightest thing about torsion waves or fields. However, these statements give me bad vibes. They really sound like pseudoscience to me, but I'm trying to keep an open mind.

Any thoughts?

Many regards,
John
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Neiby said:
I'm reading a book where the author is trying to make a point about torsion fields. I really don't know what that even is, but I know that you all do. :-) What I'm asking is for you to read a couple of paragraphs and let me know if this even sounds plausible or if it is pseudoscientific gobbledygook.
Sounds like the author has logged too many hours at the crack pipe. Do you have a reference?
 
  • #3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field" [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
I'm afraid to even mention the book. It's called The Orb Project by Micael Ledwith and Klaus Heinemann. I think the orb phenomenon is total BS, but I was challenged by Dr. William Tiller to read this book and then make a judgment. I agreed to read it, but it is filled with nonsense. For example, one author obviously does not even understand the EM spectrum. How can we trust him to understand advanced physics when it is apparent that he doesn't understand high school physics?

Klaus Heinemann has a Ph.D. in Applied Physics and the person who challenged me to read the book (Dr. Tiller) is a professor emeritus from Stanford. No slouch, although perhaps a bit on the fringe now.

I am an open-minded person. I don't mind considering things that some people might immediately discount. I prefer to do a bit of research first and then make a judgment. After all, some things that we take as a given now used to be far-fetched in the minds of many. However, I also have a fairly sensitive BS detector and it started going off as soon as I opened this book.

Dr. Tiller's foreward to the book has some things that just sound like nonsense upon initial reading to me. Then he quickly delves into math and science far beyond my experience, so I have no way to adequately address his points. He lost me as soon as he started talking about EM gauge symmetry, coupling coefficients, de Broglie particle/pilot wave entities and duplex reference frames. :-)
 
  • #5
Don't waste your time debating these cranks. Ask them to send you copies of the papers they've published in peer-reviewed, mainstream journals. You won't get any. Instead, they write self-published books titled "Psychoenergetic Science".

The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate something, not just write gibberish pandering to the "What the Bleep Do we know" crowd.
 
  • #6
Doc Al said:
Don't waste your time debating these cranks. Ask them to send you copies of the papers they've published in peer-reviewed, mainstream journals. You won't get any. Instead, they write self-published books titled "Psychoenergetic Science".

The burden of proof is on them to demonstrate something, not just write gibberish pandering to the "What the Bleep Do we know" crowd.

Actually, two of these guys have written in many peer-reviewed journals. As I mentioned, the guy that wrote the foreward of the book is a professor emeritus from Stanford. But you are partially correct: they only write in the fringe journals now.

That's why I came here. I figured you guys would know if this made any sense at all. I don't have sufficient background in this stuff to know for certain when someone is speaking gibberish. My BS detector was going off, for sure, but I have no expertise in this field so it was really just a hunch.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
On a scale of 1 to 10, how nonsensical is that stuff I quoted? Is it potentially true and just not proven, or is this stuff that is ridiculously on the fringe and almost certainly not true? Or is it even worse, just total nonsense?
 

1. What is a torsion field?

A torsion field is a hypothetical form of energy that is believed to exist in the universe. It is thought to be a type of field that is created by the spin of particles and can interact with matter and energy.

2. How is a torsion field different from other types of fields?

Torsion fields are unique because they are believed to exist in a higher dimension and can potentially influence our three-dimensional reality. They also have the ability to carry information and can potentially be used for communication and healing purposes.

3. How are torsion fields measured and studied?

Currently, there is no widely accepted method for measuring torsion fields. However, some researchers use specialized equipment, such as torsion pendulums, to try and detect their effects. The study of torsion fields is still in its early stages and is a topic of much debate and research in the scientific community.

4. What are some potential applications of torsion fields?

Some researchers believe that torsion fields could have practical applications in fields such as energy production, communication, and healing. However, more research is needed to fully understand and harness the potential of torsion fields.

5. Is there any evidence for the existence of torsion fields?

While there have been some experiments that suggest the existence of torsion fields, there is currently no conclusive evidence to support their existence. The study of torsion fields is still in its early stages and is a topic of much debate and research in the scientific community.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
919
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
826
Replies
1
Views
491
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
709
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
1K
Back
Top