Torsion Field Question from a total newbie

[Neiby]

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

 

[Doc Al]

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?

 

[Doc Al]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field"

 

[Neiby]

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. :-)

 

[Doc Al]

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.

 

[Neiby]

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.

 

[Neiby]

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?