Torsion Field Question from a total newbie

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Neiby
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Field Torsion
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of torsion fields as presented in a book titled "The Orb Project" by Micael Ledwith and Klaus Heinemann. Participants express skepticism about the plausibility of the claims made regarding torsion fields, their properties, and implications, questioning whether these ideas are scientifically valid or pseudoscientific.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express doubts about the validity of torsion fields, suggesting that the claims made in the book sound like pseudoscience.
  • One participant mentions that the author of the book seems to lack a fundamental understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum, raising concerns about the credibility of the content.
  • Another participant notes that while some authors have published in peer-reviewed journals, they are now writing in fringe journals, which raises questions about their current scientific standing.
  • There are references to specific claims in the book, such as torsion waves traveling faster than light and the idea that like charges attract in torsion fields, which some participants find implausible.
  • One participant expresses a desire for a more informed judgment but admits to a lack of expertise in the subject matter, relying on intuition about the credibility of the claims.
  • Another participant suggests that the burden of proof lies with those making extraordinary claims, emphasizing the need for scientific validation.
  • There is a request for a rating of the nonsensical nature of the quoted material, indicating a desire for a clearer understanding of its scientific validity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism and concern regarding the claims about torsion fields, indicating a lack of consensus on their validity. Multiple competing views remain, with some participants defending the authors' credentials while others dismiss the ideas as fringe or nonsensical.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference the authors' academic backgrounds and previous publications, but there is an acknowledgment that their current work may not align with mainstream scientific discourse. The discussion highlights the challenge of assessing claims without sufficient background knowledge in the field.

Neiby
Messages
11
Reaction score
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
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?
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_field"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. :-)
 
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.
 
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:
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?
 

Similar threads

Graduate What does it mean to model the distribution of galaxies as cosmic dust?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Graduate Testability of Torsion in Teleparallel Gravity - V.C. de Andrade et al
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate Electric and magnetic field lines in a plane wave of finite extent
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate How to show spin ##= \pm 2/\omega## for a circ-polarized gravity wave
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Graduate Energy-to-angular momentum ratio in EM v. gravity quadrupole radiation
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
Graduate 1-Way Speed of Light
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
Graduate Speed of Light for Bonnor Beam
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
Undergrad Why do we still say “the speed of light” instead of “c”?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Questions about the Universe: Positive & negative fields and effects
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Undergrad How Does Gravity Propagate Through Different Mediums and Energy Fields?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K