Ingo Swann, a researcher into telepathy and remote viewing who worked for about two decades with the prestigious Stanford Research Institute, has found out. He details his own research into the question and he connects it with a broader problem - the suppression of telepathic and related human capabilities. His research has been published in a hard-to-find book titled: "Penetration - The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy".

The paper version of the book is quite hard to come by. There seem to be a few used copies around but they go for a proud price. However, you can find a scanned copy - without the illustrations and photos - on Scribd. The book can be read on line or downloaded as a PDF file. Here's the address:

Penetration - The Question of Extraterrestrial and Human Telepathy

If any of my readers here do have the original, please consider scanning the illustrations and photographs and sending them to me. I promise to make them available on this page.

Physics has come a long way in explaining how things work and our mathematical formalisms are extremely useful for technological development, but the larger picture still escapes us. The 'big bang' origin of the universe takes the concepts of force and energy to their highly illogical conclusion. No one can say how that unlikely concentration of energy that, according to physicists, gave rise to a primordial explosion from which both space and matter developed, could have come into being in the first place.

William Day approaches the problem from a different angle. In his books, and now in a paper titled Holistic Physics in a Self-Organizing Universe, he argues that we must look at hierarchies, at systems and patterns of organization. Instead of trying to understand matter in terms of its parts, we must look at how things fit together. Non-Newtonian Physics is a way of looking at the universe as a system, not just an accumulation of material parts that interact and that can be understood by putting them under a microscope.

My favorite analogy for the universe has been that of a tv screen.

What we perceive as a picture in motion is nothing but a clever manipulation of pixels of light. We can create, on a perfectly immobile screen, successive images that our eyes and brain put together into a representation of moving scenes of life. Granted, the physical universe is much more detailed and more "real" than any movie, but we are still looking at the same principle.

What we see on the screen cannot be fully understood by analyzing the details of the single pixels and in a similar way, we can't understand the universe by analyzing matter, by looking at particles and splitting them up into their constituent parts.

William Day's paper details his approach to modeling physical reality by looking at how the screen is made, rather than just analyzing the picture and finding out what its parts are composed of and how they interact with each other ...

Is 'Cosmic Energy' Static Electricity?

Static electricity versus ether

Now here is Miroslav's letter to Nexus Magazine and two further, recent articles about this particular line of research of his.

Golan Heights Megaliths

The Golan Heights (wikipedia) spreads over 1250 square kilometers and is an important spring region that supplies four states with water.

The great presence of static electricity can be deduced from the high number of megalithic structures.

A local circular structure of 159 meters in diameter is composed of five concentric circles that are laid out by freely laying stones that all weigh 37,000 tons in total.

The heaviest single stones that were used weigh about 20 tons. Around this structure there are a further 8,500 dolmens and menhirs, the heaviest weighing 50 tons, and they are up to 7 meters in height.

One of the last great barely known wonders of the ancient world is a Stonehenge-like monument sitting atop Israel's Golan Heights. Called Gilgal Refaim in Hebrew (The Circle Of The Refaim or "Wheel of the rafaim"). It is one of the most mysterious archaeological sites in the world. The monument consists of five concentric stone rings whose diameter is155 meters. The best preserved of the rings is the outermost, whose height reaches 2 meters and thickness 3.3 meters. The central dolmen is built from relatively smaller rocks. [Refaim = spirits or ghosts] Image credit and description: GODSSECRET'S WEBLOG

The Golan Heights may be thought of as a natural laboratory which can provide us with historical information, in view of this research.

The static electricity that is almost unknown to present science was crucial for all megalithic structures that were built around the Earth. The new knowledge about properties of static electricity that I describe at www.miroslavprovod.com provides more in-depth information via continuing research about the mysteries of construction of megalithic structures with combinations of different kinds of rocks; for example, at Stonehenge, Machu Picchu and many other sites.

The megalithic structures had all the same function. They accumulated static electricity in their matter, which they gained from various sources. At the Golan Heights the sources are mainly underground springs, which provide the megaliths with the static electricity charge.

The electronics of the human body take the static electricity from cellular membranes in order to maintain functionality of all organs. The static electricity is continually supplied by the mitochondria.

It can be proved by various experiments that the charge of the human body can be filled by other means as well - by staying close to a greater source of static electricity, which spontaneously gives the energy to cellular membranes. The transfer of energy is rather slow.

In the case of transfer between a rock and a human body, it takes tens of minutes. This shows that the megalithic structures and, later, also the sacred structures were built mainly for health purposes.

Miroslav Provod, Czech Republic
contact centrum11 [at] volny [dot] cz

- end of Miroslav's letter to Nexus Magazine -

There are two further articles by Miroslav which add to this discussion, and you will find them here below.

It is adapted to the Italian situation, where alternative currencies are looked upon as competition to the official one. So SCEC defines itself as a complementary currency. It circulates together with the official currency.

SCEC is in the form of a discount chit denominated in Euro equivalents (in denominations of 0.50 Euro, 1, 2, 5, 10 and 50 Euro). It is distributed for free and acquires value only when used. Businesses and professionals agree to give a discount to buyers who pay (in part) with SCEC, usually around 20 %, but ranging mostly between 10 and 30 %.

A full description of the project in English - a bit lengthy but certainly of interest - is available here:

http://www.arcipelagoscec.org/doc/ArchipelagoSCECproject1.pdf

SCEC is putting first emphasis on actually supporting local production and commerce over imports from far away and world wide commerce by multinationals. The currency makes local exchanges more convenient for people who use the system, as they get a break by virtue of getting substantial discounts on the normal price.

The SCEC, once issued, stay in circulation and can be spent at any business or professional that adheres to the program and states how much discount they are willing to give. In this way, SCEC is tax neutral - no tax is to be paid on it as it is merely a discount.

Users of course, who are not subject to value added tax (VAT) when buying/selling second hand goods or exchanging favors and transactions in the social area can use SCEC to replace the official Euro currency in these direct exchanges.

SCEC is a discount as far as the government is concerned, but it is a fledgling alternative currency as far as the users are concerned.

It favors local commerce and as it gets more and more accepted, future uses might even include the payment of rates or (local) taxes.

An electronic system to run side by side with the currently available paper currency is in the planning stage. This would work like any bank account. You can make transfers to other users of the system, and you can convert paper into electronic or electronic into paper, if so desired.

Organizationally, SCEC is organized as a non profit "archipelago of several islands" which are the regional associations that are independent of each other, but agree to use the same kind of currency and to exchange information on who are the member businesses and professionals who accept SCEC as part payment for their goods or services.

SCEC are issued periodically and equally to all participants in the system, in exchange for a voluntary contribution intended to defray the costs of printing and administration.

Loans in SCEC to participating businesses are possible. They are given as an advance on future distribution of the currency. Once someone has received a loan they will not receive any future SCEC distributed to others, until they are "caught up" and are once again eligible to receive the normal distributions. Anyone entering the system gets 100 SCEC to start trading. To get more, they have to either wait for another periodic distribution or have to start giving some kind of service for which they accept SCEC in payment.

Rocking Stones such as this delicately balanced rock of some 800 or 900 tons are called Logan rocks. The image is of a rock at Treen in Cornwall. It has been taken from a wikipedia article on Logan rocks.

In any case, here is Miroslav's article...

Image credit: Next-up Org

But then - with the need to conserve electricity and all that, I was kind of half-heartedly starting to substitute the new "good" bulbs for those dirty old wasteful glow lamps that waste some of the energy as heat, also known as the infrared band. So I had about six of those CFL glass spirals in use, and a few new ones waiting for more of the old bulbs to konk out and be substituted.

Then, this morning, I read an email from my friend Rob and changed my mind. I unscrewed those bulbs that had snuck their way into my electric system and, together with the new ones, brought them to the garbage bin down by the street. Why ... I hear some of you asking. Well, here's the message of Rob, and a link or two to follow.

Check it out and make your own decision...

Sepp

PESWiki has a page that explains the Vivace concept, including some drawings and videos of a test set-up:

Fish-Inspired, Low-Speed Water Current Harvesting

Vivace or Vortex-Induced Vibrations for Aquatic Clean Energy is a rather unique system that puts the power of vortices forming in flowing water to positive use. The formation of a vortex alternately above and below the cylindric 'obstacle' forces an alternating vertical motion of the cylinder, the energy of which can be harnessed.

Another one of those systems that use the normal flow of river water is the invention of Austrian engineer Zotloterer, where the water forms a snail's vortex, which is then directly converted into electricity by shedding its power to turn a slow-running turbine. See Water Vortex Drives Power Plant.

Other systems that utilize slow water flow are described in PESWiki's Low Impact Hydro page.

While such use of slow flowing water seems much less efficient than using the water pressure built up by a dam, the number of sites that can potentially be used is almost unlimited. This more than compensates for the relatively low efficiency. An advantage that should not be underestimated is the fish-friendly nature of these technologies, as well as their adaptability to an infinite variety of local conditions. They make it possible to produce our electric energy right where we need it - close to cities and villages - rather than in some remote region from whence it then has to be transmitted to reach the point of consumption.

Here is an article about the VIVACE project in Michigan from Phys.org, as first published by the Detroit Free Press - http://www.freep.com

Umair Haque, in a recent article titled "Four Ways to Build a Better Economy" alludes to monetary reform as one of the changes we need to make to overcome the current crisis:

The Currency Fix. "The invisible hand doesn't mean that profiteers get to reach into your pocket with every trade. Yet, that's the economy we've built: one where you bear a collective responsibility for the decisions of bankers, beancounters, and other borrowers. Why? Because you have to invest, consume, and earn in a national currency, which can whipsaw up, down, or sideways, leaving you and your savings at the mercy of the state and the crony capitalists that control it.

It's time for this con game to end. Tomorrow's radical innovators will reconceive currency itself: they will design next-generation currencies that are globally accessible, ubiquitously liquid, and that are inherently, permanently hedged and insured -- so instead of getting inflated, deflated, disinflated, and eviscerated, currencies can do what, well, they were meant to do: serve as a durable store of authentic value."

I would add that an even more important function of currency than "durable store of authentic value" is to be an "abundantly available means of exchange and investment". Those two functions, mediating the exchange of goods and permitting investment for productive activities are perhaps the most immediately important functions of any monetary system and they should be programmed into a new currency right from the start.

A report by Joseph Huber and James Robertson of the New Economics Foundation lays out and discusses a direction of currency reform, to bring our monetary system into alignment with today's new realities:

The rules of the money system have shifted. The majority of money that now changes hands does so electronically. As a result, far more than ever before, new money is not issued by the state but by banks. Ninety seven pounds in every one hundred circulating in the economy will now have been issued by banks (in the form of sight deposits, printed into customers' accounts as interest-bearing debts). Only three pounds are cash, issued by the state (in the form of banknotes and coins, issued at no interest). The cost to the state of issuing new money is only the cost of producing banknotes and coins. The cost to the banks of issuing new money is virtually zero. The state receives public revenues from issuing cash, but banks make private profits. The benefits of the money system are therefore being captured by the financial services industry rather than shared democratically.

Web of Debt: The Shocking Truth About Our Money System -- The Sleight of Hand That Has Trapped Us in Debt and How We Can Break Free

Find the book on Amazon

Our money system is not what we have been led to believe. The creation of money has been "privatized," or taken over by a private money cartel. Except for coins, all of our money is now created as loans advanced by private banking institutions -- including the private Federal Reserve. Banks create the principal but not the interest to service their loans. To find the interest, new loans must continually be taken out, expanding the money supply, inflating prices -- and robbing you of the value of your money. Web of Debt unravels the deception and presents a crystal clear picture of the financial abyss towards which we are heading. Then it explores a workable alternative, one that was tested in colonial America and is grounded in the best of American economic thought, including the writings of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln.

About the Author
Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and "the money trust." She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back.

Ellen Brown has applied her training as a litigating attorney, researcher and writer to the monetary field, unearthing facts that even the majority of banking and financial experts ignore: ranging from the privatization of money creation, to the Plunge Protection Team, to the Federal Reserve's "Helicopter Money." Read it; you'll get information you need in order to understand what is going on in our financial markets today. - Bernard Lietaer, former European central banker, author of "The Future of Money" and "Of Human Wealth"

Screen capture of a Powerpoint slide of projected oil production. Note that everything to the right of 2005, that's the peak you see in this graph, is purely hypothetical. The graph wants to make us believe that its makers have a crystal ball that allows them to look into the future. If you care to dig up older graphs of this kind, you will notice that the "peak" is always at the point in time the graph was made, with the future looking bleak. Only, the real world is not like that. Every time so far, the real production has kept ging up, despite the predictions of the doomsayers. - Image credit: EV World

The question - whether hydrocarbons are geological reality instead of the remains of huge quantities of once living matter compressed to become goo - is not as far fetched as it might seem. One of the world's leading advocates for the theory that hydrocarbons are renewable is Dr. Thomas Gold. He contends that oil is not a limited resource, and that oil, natural gas and coal, are not so-called "fossil fuels."

In his book, The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels, he explains that dinosaurs and plants and the fossils from those living beings are not the origin of oil and natural gas, but rather generated from a chemical substance in the crust of the Earth. Gold says:

"Astronomers have been able to find that hydrocarbons, as oil, gas and coal are called, occur on many other planetary bodies. They are a common substance in the universe. You find it in the kind of gas clouds that made systems like our solar system. You find large quantities of hydrocarbons in them. Is it reasonable to think that our little Earth, one of the planets, contains oil and gas for reasons that are all its own and that these other bodies have it because it was built into them when they were born?" That question makes a lot of sense. After all, they didn't have dinosaurs and ferns on Jupiter to produce oil and gas?

The quote is from an article by Joel Bainerman who asks: If hydrocarbons are renewable- then is "Peak Oil" a fraud?

Alexander Alan Scarborough has formulated an Energy Fuels Theory, which makes a very similar argument. Scarborough explains:

The theory that fuels (gas, oil and coal) were made from fossils has gone unchallenged for almost 150 years. This fossil fuels theory (FFT) was formulated in the 1830's on the basis of three observations common to 100 coal mines. During the 1920's, the theory was enhanced by the concept of petroleum being created from marine organisms. Over the years, a significant amount of subtle, yet substantial evidence that argues against the validity of the FFT has accumulated in the literature.

These arguments have been condensed into six critical points that simultaneously render strong support to the new theory of fuels formation by natural laws of physics and chemistry. The new energy fuels theory (EFT) explains the formation of fuels (and all known matter) by the logical progression of the transformation of energy particles into atoms, into gaseous molecules, then into liquid and solids via molecular chain-building processes. The intimate relationships of gas, oil and coal, are illustrated by five facts that render additional strong support to the EFT. The immense ramifications of the new concept that appears destined to replace the FFT are briefly discussed.

Considering that the "peak oil" alarm was first sounded by a petroleum geologist working for one of the major oil producers, there is a good probability that indeed, as Bainerman suggests, the "peak oil" scare could be a scam designed to justify stratospheric profits of the major petrochemical companies, which we have indeed seen in these last few years.

Peak oil, also sometimes called Hubbert's peak, goes back to a prediction, first made in 1949 by M. King Hubbert, a geophysicist and Chief Consultant for the Exploration and Production Research Division of Shell, that oil production would continue to increase but would "peak" in about 1970 and decline thereafter.

US oil production has indeed peaked at the predicted time. But some say that this was due to a systematic program of shutting down and sealing many oil and gas producing wells. Not surprisingly however, world production seems reluctant to follow suit. You can shut oil wells in one country, but it is difficult to do so all over the world. Some say the wars in the Middle East were about protecting oil supplies. Wake up, people - those wars did the exact same thing that was done previously on the US mainland. They effectively shut down production. Remember the burning oil fields in Irak after the first oil war there, or the fall in Irak's oil output since the more recent US "shock and awe" campaign?

Since there is demand for hydrocarbons and since indeed oil seems to be a renewable and constantly growing resource, as suggested by Gold, Scarborough and others, it is hardly surprising that international oil production has not been hitting its peak just yet.

Until recently, I had been under the impression that oxygen levels in the atmosphere are quite stable around 21 per cent, and have been so for a long time. However in a recent discussion about burning coal as fuel, some interesting information emerged that tends to disprove the concept of a stable oxygen level.

Historical trends, as explained in Atmospheric Oxygen, Giant Paleozoic Insects and the Evolution of Aerial Locomotor Performance by R. Dudley, JExB, show a high of about 35% just before the beginning of the Permian, with a rapid decline to a low of about 13-14% near the beginning of the Triassic, then a small spike at about 17% in mid Triassic, another drop to about 14-15% early in the Jurassic, a sudden climb to about 21% by mid-Jurassic, then a gentle climb to about 26% early in the Tertiary, and a rather constant, steady decline to the present "20.9%."

But even now, we are not necessarily assured of a more-than-20-per cent oxygen level in the air at all times.

Coal fired power plant - Image credit: Sun-volt.com

In that discussion, Adrian said: "There is really no such thing as "clean" coal. Even if you take all of the non-carbon contents out, the resultant burning still produces enormous amounts of carbon dioxide. We may be getting to the stage where we will have to be concerned about the amount of oxygen we have left in the atmosphere to breathe... I read that a research paper comparing the health of people living at low compared to high altitudes showed that it was the lack of oxygen that was harmful for certain ailments.

Oxygen used to be about 20% of the atmosphere but today in some places, it is as low as 16%. Carbon dioxide is actually a fairly heavy gas (molecular weight 44 as compared to oxygen 32 and nitrogen 28) so that during times of little wind, it would have a tendency to settle in pockets. That is one reason cave exploration can be so hazardous.

People living in large cities in India have such a high incidence of lung disease that older diesel motors have been banned. I have not read any carbon dioxide studies but reducing the amount of oxygen available, certainly places a strain on the heart, especially for old people with weak hearts and those with any type of lung problems.

Carbon dioxide sequestering seems to be a stupid idea because the process also sequesters oxygen in the process. Someone needs to present calculations showing how the burning of coal, oil and natural gas is affecting our oxygen supply. The question really boils down to "how much oxygen would be left in the atmosphere if all fossil fuels were consumed?" Yes, people will say that trees and algae will take care of the oxygen production but the real concern is what level of oxygen is required to maintain a good healthy atmosphere for humans as well as for other living organisms."

So it appears the oxygen content of air is not uniform all over the planet, some places seem to be much worse than others. The cause: use of carbon-based fuels, together with our disregard for the contribution of forests to keeping the air breathable.

Hotson also indicates the direction we should take to arrive at a more realistic interpretation of experimental results and of the data obtained through astronomical observations. He develops a model, based on what Dirac originally intended with his equation, that is intuitive and provides a good base for further research.

"If we continue to use the wrong model (and the Standard Model is profoundly wrong) we will continue to get confusing results," says Hotson, going on to develop an explanation of "the nature of the energetic, non-stationary aether that Einstein missed, that Dirac's equation demonstrates, and that Heisenberg and others destroyed when they dismantled this equation."

Flower of life - (I found the image on Richard Lalancette's blog, as part of an article titled: Zero Point Energy & The Dirac Equation)

If, like me, you are mathematically challenged, please do not get discouraged by the use of Dirac's equation. That is merely a starting point for an immensely readable, if somewhat lengthy, treatise in plain language of what's wrong with physics and where to look for better answers.

Don Hotson's article was first published in 2002 in Infinite Energy magazine and, due to its importance, is scheduled to be re-published in an upcoming special edition of the same magazine.

Dr. Brian Ahern (PhD, physics, MIT) called it "The best physics yet written". Dr. Hal Puthoff said it was "A true tour de force" and apparently plans to do some analytical work based on it. Dr. Nick Herbert, author of the book "Quantum Reality", offered to write an introduction and an astronomer called it "The finest example of beauty and simplicity in all of physics".

I hesitated to read the article when I first saw it, and only did so recently on the insistence of the author. Having read it, I do recommend that you download the two PDF files and print them out for reading. Get the files here:

<>

<>

Underlying invisible non-physical realities are relegated to the world of the paranormal, never thought of as possible candidates of ultimate cause for physical existence. So I am happy to see this paper by Rinaldo Lampis, who argues that our current model

"...clashes increasingly with a view of Reality that arises from theoretical analysis and experimental findings. The discrete, reductionist, mathematical-model approach, used to explain the functioning of simple physical objects like engines or solar systems, is not suitable when we desire to explain more complex phenomena..."

This recent article, called New pieces of knowledge raises the possibility that static electricity and cosmic energy may be one and the same thing.

Miroslav did some experiments with groups of condensers, which led him to that conclusion. See what he says...

Paramahamsa Tewari

Tewari's Space Vortex Theory (SVT) explains universal reality in a radically different way from that proposed by physicists today. A new book titled Discovering Universal Reality is available from his site (PDF download - 1.3MB) or in print from Stonehill Foundation in Kerala, India (stonehillfoundation@asianetindia.com). Tewari summarizes and explains the principles of SVT in a way that is understandable to everyone. You do not have to follow his equations to get the gist of what is said.

According to Tewari's theory, there is only one basic, stable particle - the electron - which in combination of great numbers builds atoms and thus makes up all the matter we perceive. The electron is seen as a bubble in the fluid of space, created by circulation of the space medium. When that circulation exceeds the space medium's limit of cohesion, it leaves a tiny spherical void. The existence of this tiny void stresses the incompressible space medium creating the electrical and gravitational properties we associate with matter.

Light and heat are oscillations of matter but they are transferred through space by a wave-like disturbance of the medium of which matter consists. There are no "photons" to visualize as separate particles, merely successive expanding "shells" of a disturbance propagating through space with the speed of light - c.

To vizualize this, let's look at the sea shore. The waves of water (the medium) transmit a force to the pebbles at the shore, they move them, roll them around, and in time grind them into fine sand. But there is no particle doing all this work - merely the waves of the medium. And the medium of space is much more dense than water...

But I better let Tewari speak, lest I get carried away and inject too much of my own - in this case necessarily secondary - understanding of things. Tewari's views have revolutionary implications for our understanding of the universe and they will - if proven correct - allow us to gain a conceptual understanding of physical reality. What a change that would be from today's physics which has become an esoteric labyrinth of mathemathical constructions that - it is said - only the brightest (but really perhaps only the most convoluted?) minds can grasp...