15 replies to this topic

[kumaran]

A while back  I was scanning the net looking for antigravity type propulsion systems, I came across this oraganisation called the Keshe Foundation. It was started by a nuclear physicist to promote his nuclear plasma reactors which have antigravity propulsion capabilities and also shielding effect. This type of craft would be great for interstellar travel. He says he is going to demonstrate his technology on 21.03.2010 . He also plans trips to space for 10 hrs by 2014 and trips to the moon by 2016. Website is http://www.keshetech...s.com/home.html . Peswiki page is http://peswiki.com/i...eshe_Foundation .

[behaviour???]

I thought antimatter and matter wont exist together since it is said that if there is a positive kumaran and a negative kumaran when shaking hands the negative on will speed to sky......And so that they cannot exist together...I heard it and I do not know the credibility of the claim
Thanks
B???

[Peter B]

kumaran, on Jul 30 2009, 07:30 PM, said:

He says he is going to demonstrate his technology on 21.03.2010 . He also plans trips to space for 10 hrs by 2014 and trips to the moon by 2016.

Well, I have no idea about his science, but he's made a prediction (his demonstration date), so I suppose we should mark it in our diaries and await events.

I would note, however, that he makes a few comments about patents and licencing. Patents by themselves are no proof of efficacy, only of originality. And paying money for the local rights to an invention which hasn't been demonstrated is risky.

[Peter B]

behaviour???, on Jul 30 2009, 11:05 PM, said:

I thought antimatter and matter wont exist together since it is said that if there is a positive kumaran and a negative kumaran when shaking hands the negative on will speed to sky......And so that they cannot exist together...I heard it and I do not know the credibility of the claim
Thanks
B???

According to mainstream physics, when matter and anti-matter come into contact, they mutually annihilate and release a lot of energy. Presumably this gentleman has a different interpretation of such matters (pardon the pun). If he's right it should be reasonably straightforward to demonstrate. But I have no serious knowledge of physics.

[keshe]

Peter B, on Jul 31 2009, 11:49 AM, said:

According to mainstream physics, when matter and anti-matter come into contact, they mutually annihilate and release a lot of energy. Presumably this gentleman has a different interpretation of such matters (pardon the pun). If he's right it should be reasonably straightforward to demonstrate. But I have no serious knowledge of physics.


May I pose a question in the quoted matter above
“when matter and anti-matter come into contact, they mutually annihilate and release a lot of energy”

If this is the case, why organisation like Fermilab of USA expect to release so much energy out of the antimatter component of the plasma which they have collected, where they could have done the same with matter component of the plasma up to now.

The argument of the interaction of matter and antimatter releasing lots of energy does no hold truth if the present assumptions are accepted and if the real structure of the plasma understood.



In referring to demonstration of the technology, you have to mark your date for the 21.3.2010.

The technology will demonstrated and  will show the reality in physics and not up to now assumed physics.

[sepulchrave]

I don't know what kind of `physics' Dr. Keshe is referring to in the video. I watched the first few minutes, then turned it off after I had counted far too many errors.

• `You need a neutron to create an atom' - You can create a hydrogen atom by carefully controlled neutron decay; you can also create a hydrogen atom by having a proton capture a free electron.
  
• `... plasma inside the proton' - I seriously hope that Keshe is not confusing the `quark-gluon plasma' inside a nucleus as the same sort of plasma in interstellar space, stars, or conventional nuclear/tokamak reactors. They are very different.
  
• `fundamental magnetic and gravitational fields' - I suppose you could define a magnetic field as something fundamental, but it seems a bit stupid. It is far better (easier, more consistent, etc.) to define spin and charge as the fundamental things, and have magnetic (and electric, etc.) fields exist as a consequence of that.
  
• `antimatter and matter annihilating each other is against the law of physics' - Here's where I don't know what `law of physics' is being talked about. Matter-antimatter annihilation is a straight-forward (and frequently observed) process, suggested both by General Relativity (E = mc²) and Quantum Field Theory.

In any event, there is no evidence, nor theory, suggesting that anti-matter has any sort of anti-gravitic effect, and if it did have any such effect, it would make large amounts of anti-matter even more challenging to work with.

[Peter B]

I said:

Quote

when matter and anti-matter come into contact, they mutually annihilate and release a lot of energy...

Keshe said:

Quote

If this is the case, why organisation like Fermilab of USA expect to release so much energy out of the antimatter component of the plasma which they have collected, where they could have done the same with matter component of the plasma up to now.

I have no idea. I'm not a physicist. Have you asked Fermilab?

[keshe]

May be  it is prudent to ask your knowledgeable scientist the following,  from your  input


`“You need a neutron to create an atom' - You can create a hydrogen atom by carefully controlled neutron decay; you can also create a hydrogen atom by having a proton capture a free electron“.
Can one know where this electron has to come from for proton to capture it?

Secondly where did the protons has to come from to capture the electron?

This is exactly why one switches the video off because, one does not know and is not open to listen to how proton and electrons are created to start with.

You are correct once you have them you can make any atom, but where are you suppose to get them from, unless they are produced in the same methods as in described In the video and explained in details in the book.




Your second point

“`... plasma inside the proton' - I seriously hope that Keshe is not confusing the `quark-gluon plasma' inside a nucleus as the same sort of plasma in interstellar space, stars, or conventional nuclear/tokamak reactors. They are very different“.

In fact if you listen to all five videos in sequence and read the book as a large number of scientists have been doing in the past two weeks, we have explained for the first time that quarks of a plasma are created through interaction of magnetic fields which they create their own magnetosphere as planet earth does, thus what we see as quarks, these are independent plasmas, thus the three quarks in their appearance are in reality Matter, the Antimatter, and dark Matter components of the plasma.

In book it has been explained that, the new elementary particles of the plasma( this being, neutron, proton or electron) are in fact plasmatic magnetic fields and not what has been assumed up to now to be quarks

Your othere point

“`fundamental magnetic and gravitational fields' - I suppose you could define a magnetic field as something fundamental, but it seems a bit stupid. It is far better (easier, more consistent, etc.) to define spin and charge as the fundamental things, and have magnetic (and electric, etc.) fields exist as a consequence of that.”

The new understanding of the structure of quarks, now it can be explained that why we see spines of quarks, these are the same as the spine of magnetosphere of the earth.



Your other point



`“antimatter and matter annihilating each other is against the law of physics' - Here's where I don't know what `law of physics' is being talked about. Matter-antimatter annihilation is a straight-forward (and frequently observed) process, suggested both by General Relativity (E = mc2) and Quantum Field Theory“.


Antimatter is a tangible entity, Fermilab can confirm that to you, as they confirmed that they have capture a large number of these and have made special containment method and facility for them.

Thus the scientists who have advocated in the past and have put forward the concept that  in the collision of matter and anti matter, there is only the realise of energy, and then nothing is left, then by knowing antimatter is a tangible entity and matter being a tangible entity too, then when two tangible entity collide , there is nothing left , but some release of energy, this concept  by these scientist can not be correct.

Interaction of two tangible entity leaves always some tangible entity behinds.

Lets say if you get hit by a fast train (god forbid), then, because the train was going  faster, than you and had more energy than you, then the outcome of the incident, would be nothing  left of you in the physical world. I hope you are not made of nothing. There would be something left of your physical body. On the train or on the track.

This is the same when antimatter collides with the matter, yes there will be some energy released, but in fact, the antimatter will absorb the magnetic field of the matter and they amalgamate and the stronger which is the matter will carry on as before.


I am sure  one does not need the basic quantum physic for one to understand this effect.

We know there is a lot of un- easy in the top levels of scientific community in regard to understanding that quarks are not the fundamental and the assumed elementary particles by release of this new book, as they have been thought in the recent past.

But what amazes us, is that how difficult its is for these scientists to analyse the facts put forward in the book. You can not analyse it if you do not read first.

Further, if scientific world up to now has not managed to produce a viable universal system for creation of motion and energy, that has got us in the point of destruction of the planet and endangering the future of the human existence on the planet at this moment, thus why not read the book and then make comments, may be there is a new way.

These out of hand comments are made by old school of thought in the world of physics whom they see their comfortable seats shaken and they need adjusting their knowledge.  We surely respect that, but time has come to move on and not defend the hypocrisies of the past, but let us build the future on what the scientific community through out the world has build up to now and add to it in a positive way.

Your comments are correct in respect to the knowledge of the past and not the knowledge and systems which we have developed and will be demonstrating in events which we have announced in the coming month.

[sepulchrave]

keshe, on Aug 2 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

Can one know where this electron has to come from for proton to capture it?

Secondly where did the protons has to come from to capture the electron?

Well as far as we (or I guess, more correctly, ``I'') know, electrons and protons are stable. Neutrons are not: a free neutron will decay. But this is irrelevant: a slow moving proton (perhaps ejected from a radioactive atom) can capture a suitably slow-moving electron (perhaps ejected via Bremsstrahlung from a metallic surface, or whatever) and make a stable hydrogen atom. You don't need anything at the future `core' of this atom - the video seems to imply that you need some neutron or something for an atom to form around.

keshe, on Aug 2 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

This is exactly why one switches the video off because, one does not know and is not open to listen to how proton and electrons are created to start with.

So the universe started off as a bunch of neutrons, many of which subsequently decayed into protons and electrons?

keshe, on Aug 2 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

In fact if you listen to all five videos in sequence and read the book as a large number of scientists have been doing in the past two weeks, we have explained for the first time that quarks of a plasma are created through interaction of magnetic fields which they create their own magnetosphere as planet earth does, thus what we see as quarks, these are independent plasmas, thus the three quarks in their appearance are in reality Matter, the Antimatter, and dark Matter components of the plasma.

Sorry, I am impatient. If something makes no sense, and is completely contradictory to my knowledge of physics, my first reaction is usually not to read/watch all the other material on the subject. Even this short piece of your post makes no sense: The earth has a magnetic field; the magnetosphere is a special region of this field where there are lots of ionized particles (the ionosphere, in the upper atmosphere); ionized particles interact strongly with magnetic fields, this has a variety of effects (van Allen radiation belts, aurora borealis, etc.). Elementary particles DON'T have magnetospheres. They have more or less homogeneous, axially-symmetric magnetic fields.

keshe, on Aug 2 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

In book it has been explained that, the new elementary particles of the plasma( this being, neutron, proton or electron) are in fact plasmatic magnetic fields and not what has been assumed up to now to be quarks

Really? So the simple explanation that all the vast, vast, vast library of exotic high-energy particles are made up of simple combinations of only six quarks is wrong? And these particles are distinct versions of a `plasmatic magnetic field'?

keshe, on Aug 2 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

The new understanding of the structure of quarks, now it can be explained that why we see spines of quarks, these are the same as the spine of magnetosphere of the earth.

I don't know what `the spine' of a quark is. Perhaps you are referring to a preferred direction? I thought the old theory was quite satisfactory: {magnetism} is a result of {electric charge} + {motion}, the presence of {motion} breaks spatial symmetry and therefore introduces a preferred direction. To be specific: electric fields, depending only on {electric charge} can be spherically symmetric; but magnetic fields can be at best axially symmetric.

keshe, on Aug 2 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

Antimatter is a tangible entity, Fermilab can confirm that to you, as they confirmed that they have capture a large number of these and have made special containment method and facility for them.

Absolutely.

keshe, on Aug 2 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

Thus the scientists who have advocated in the past and have put forward the concept that  in the collision of matter and anti matter, there is only the realise of energy, and then nothing is left, then by knowing antimatter is a tangible entity and matter being a tangible entity too, then when two tangible entity collide , there is nothing left , but some release of energy, this concept  by these scientist can not be correct.

No. Like I said before: E = mc². `m' is mass, which I guess is what you call `tangible', and `E' is energy. You can directly convert mass into energy. This is precisely, exactly, 100% what is observed in matter/anti-matter interactions. This is precisely, exactly, 100% how nuclear and thermonuclear reactions work.

keshe, on Aug 2 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

This is the same when antimatter collides with the matter, yes there will be some energy released, but in fact, the antimatter will absorb the magnetic field of the matter and they amalgamate and the stronger which is the matter will carry on as before.

I am not a particle physicist. But as an undergrad I had an opportunity to look at some bubble-chamber data from SLAC. This is where they collide high-energy particles, matter, and anti-matter together in a chamber of low-temperature gas. As the high-energy particles blast through the gas, they create bubbles tracking their motion - and these bubbles are photographed by cameras. If you trace out the trajectories of these bubbles you can, with a ruler and a pencil, calculate the mass, charge, and speed of the particles. And everything works, according to the normal theory. You see spots where two particles intersected and then just disappeared (a matter/anti-matter collision, since the energy released doesn't create bubbles).

You can spin out all the videos, books, and seemingly-logical arguments you like. But until you can give me some experimental data, a short set of simple rules, and some basic calculating equipment and I will be able to figure out exactly what happened in the experiment, I'm placing my bets on the side of `main-stream science'

keshe, on Aug 2 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

I am sure  one does not need the basic quantum physic for one to understand this effect.

Yeee-ouch. You are talking about the behaviour inside atoms and you think one DOESN'T need quantum mechanics?

keshe, on Aug 2 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

We know there is a lot of un- easy in the top levels of scientific community in regard to understanding that quarks are not the fundamental and the assumed elementary particles by release of this new book, as they have been thought in the recent past.

But what amazes us, is that how difficult its is for these scientists to analyse the facts put forward in the book. You can not analyse it if you do not read first.

You can't expect Scientists to read everything someone puts forward, unless it is in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

But I will extend the olive branch: I am a scientist. And like Jerry Maguire (well, I guess Rod Tidwell) said `show me the money', I will say `show me the math'. If you can summarize your theory of plasma in a few equations, I will examine it, and if necessary, show it to my friends in the plasma physics and quantum chromodynamics groups.

keshe, on Aug 2 2009, 05:42 AM, said:

Your comments are correct in respect to the knowledge of the past and not the knowledge and systems which we have developed and will be demonstrating in events which we have announced in the coming month.

Well I look forward to seeing it, and to being proved wrong.

[DieChecker]

keshe, on Aug 2 2009, 04:42 AM, said:

Antimatter is a tangible entity, Fermilab can confirm that to you, as they confirmed that they have capture a large number of these and have made special containment method and facility for them.

Thus the scientists who have advocated in the past and have put forward the concept that  in the collision of matter and anti matter, there is only the realise of energy, and then nothing is left, then by knowing antimatter is a tangible entity and matter being a tangible entity too, then when two tangible entity collide , there is nothing left , but some release of energy, this concept  by these scientist can not be correct.

Interaction of two tangible entity leaves always some tangible entity behinds.

Lets say if you get hit by a fast train (god forbid), then, because the train was going  faster, than you and had more energy than you, then the outcome of the incident, would be nothing  left of you in the physical world. I hope you are not made of nothing. There would be something left of your physical body. On the train or on the track.

This is the same when antimatter collides with the matter, yes there will be some energy released, but in fact, the antimatter will absorb the magnetic field of the matter and they amalgamate and the stronger which is the matter will carry on as before.

Do you have a link, or resource,  to any of that, or is it just opinion? As far as I know matter and antimatter collisions result in complete energy transformation. How do you think they make Anit-matter? From high energy collisions. Basically creating matter and anti-matter from energy with other particles as catalyst.

From Wikipedia:

Quote

The biggest limiting factor in the production of antimatter is the availability of antiprotons. Recent data released by CERN states that when fully operational their facilities are capable of producing 107 antiprotons per second.[citation needed] Assuming an optimal conversion of antiprotons to antihydrogen, it would take two billion years to produce 1 gram or 1 mole of antihydrogen (approximately 6.02×1023 atoms of antihydrogen). Another limiting factor to antimatter production is storage. As stated above there is no known way to effectively store antihydrogen. The ATHENA project has managed to keep antihydrogen atoms from annihilation for tens of seconds — just enough time to briefly study their behaviour.

So you can see that they can create and store anti-matter, but in such small amounts and for such short times that it is still un-usable for any engineering application.

Edit: And... even with 1 gram of anti-matter, a ship would not have enough power to actually go anywere.

Edited by DieChecker, 03 August 2009 - 08:04 PM.

[kumaran]

DieChecker, on 03 August 2009 - 08:02 PM, said:

Do you have a link, or resource,  to any of that, or is it just opinion? As far as I know matter and antimatter collisions result in complete energy transformation. How do you think they make Anit-matter? From high energy collisions. Basically creating matter and anti-matter from energy with other particles as catalyst.

From Wikipedia:


So you can see that they can create and store anti-matter, but in such small amounts and for such short times that it is still un-usable for any engineering application.

Edit: And... even with 1 gram of anti-matter, a ship would not have enough power to actually go anywere.

Very true. I made a big mistake bringing this topic up. I agree with everyone who had doubts with Keshes theory. His theory is bull as it does not take into account quantum theory or any other theories. I don't believe it too. Please accept my apologies. He has no proof. it's just a moneymaking stunt. Don't believe it.

[kumaran]

Keshe like all the other free energy and antigravity and so on are just at it again. They make false claims with no evidence and then say oh the government is suppressing them. There are nazis in america. Bloody bull ****. This Keshe says the Belgium government is censoring him and wants to move out. OK then what right do you have to say such things about a progressive country like Belgium. If you don't like it go back to Iran and continue scamming your own people. People who buy your books are buying garbage. The peek view shows hundreds of faults. He has no right to compare himself with men like Einstein. Those were great men.

[kumaran]

FBI Most Wanted  Wanted for sedition against Belgian and US government. Falsifying experiments and saying false allegations against said governments. If seen report to the nearest US embassy or FBI office.

Attached Files

•  clip_image002.jpg   9.07K   2 downloads

[sepulchrave]

kumaran, I think your posts here make this the best thread ever.

Synopsis of kumaran's posts:

• This Keshe stuff seems interesting.
  
• Sorry, this Keshe stuff is all wrong.
  
• .... And Keshe is wanted by the FBI.

Hilarious.

Edited by sepulchrave, 01 November 2009 - 04:52 PM.

[behaviour???]

sepulchrave, on 01 November 2009 - 04:51 PM, said:

kumaran, I think your posts here make this the best thread ever.

Synopsis of kumaran's posts:

• This Keshe stuff seems interesting.
  
• Sorry, this Keshe stuff is all wrong.
  
• .... And Keshe is wanted by the FBI.

Hilarious.

Contrary to all posts he make...Where is the tournaments?

Thank,s
B???