I agree that excerpts from
“FUTURE ENGINEERING: TIME GATE: Operation Future Wave: AN OVERVIEW” is pseudo-science gibberish.
My favorite line from it is:
- ultra high order gamma ray bursts have now mysteriously been detected to be pulsed from the earth during lightening storms into space. They are also of such a high order as to be beyond light, or even beyond neutrino's.
This is a classic form of pseudoscience, blending an accurate statement with several inaccurate implications and nonsense terms. Orbiting gamma frequency observatories, the first of which was flow in 1994, have detected gamma ray photons emitted from lightning storms (known as
TGFs). However, gamma rays are not “beyond light”, other than in the sense that they are outside of the visible band of EM radiation. At the 20 MeV (20,000,000 eV) maximum observed for TGFs, they are not more energetic that the most energetic detected neutrinos 3 GeV (3,000,000,000 eV), and more energetic than ones detected at less than 1 MeV.
Although the precise cause of TGFs is not fully explained, it’s well demonstrated experimentally and explained theoretically that high velocity electrons colliding with atoms such as those in the atmosphere produce gamma photons. Far from mysterious, its fairly certain that TGFs are caused by this effect.However, among it’s misuses of the
electronvolt (eV) unit is not that it uses it as a unit of mass. Although, speaking strictly, the eV is a unit of energy, the mass unit
, is commonly omitted in scientific conversation and writing with its “divided by the speed of light squared” part omitted, in a manner similar to how the
avoirdupois measurement system’s
pound (lb) unit is commonly used both as a unit of force and as a unit of mass (lb/g).
The “Time Gate” paper does misuse eVs, but its misuse is as a unit of charge, not mass.
As with a lot of pseudoscience, debunking, this document can be entertaining and educational, but unfortunately, for people like myself who have seen a lot of this sort of writing, it can also be annoying. Rather than many readers having to debunk it for themselves and others, it would be nice if the writers debunked it themselves – although it would then be much less dramatic and impressive-seeming.
The most interesting observation I found in it is the various different domains in which there are 64 of a kind of thing:
- 64 squares on a 2-D checker/chess board.
3-D boards typically have 
, or, more commonly of one that is actually used to play chess, 
, although the “tri-D board” known from Star Trek actually has 64 squares. 3 fixed boards of 16 squares each, and 4 movable boards of 4 squares each, although one could argue that the 4 movable boards actually give it 3 x 4 x 4 + 3 x 6 x 6 = 156 squares (the movable boards are allowed to overhand the fixed boards by 1 square, making the 3 “virtual boards” formed 6 x 6. - 64 hexagrams of the traditional I Ching.
Any order-important random-pattern generator using 6 two-sided tossed things has 
possible patterns. - 64 codons of the 20 amino acids and a “stop” and “start” “command”.
DNA and RNA both have 4 bases, and, in apparently every organism yet examined, code for proteins in units of 3 base pairs, so there are 
possible codons. Because some code for the same amino acid, there are only 20, not 64-2 = 62, amino acids.
I don’t think we should conclude from these coincidences that 64 is an unusually “key” number in nature. Like electrical engineers, nature (or at least our anthropomorphized feel for it) appears to favor minimal designs, and the minimal base for a fixed-base positional
numeral system is two. It’s expected, then, that we find a lot of remarkable collections of things number a power of two – 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, etc.
In the case of chess and checker boards, 64 squares seems purely coincidental. In the history of chess and checker-like games, a lot of boards sizes and arrangements other than 8 x 8 have been and continue to be popular. Had China, rather than India and European countries, had a more dominant role in the history of games, we might well think of 19 x 19 or 9 x 10 as being the usual size of a square tiled game board.
IMHO, the best experience that can be had from papers like “Time Gate” can be had by readers like neurtonjon who are unsure if it’s good math and science, or bad. Take one claim – for example, an easy one is
That the sun has been transforming since 1957, and in the 1979 sunspot maximum reacted as never seen before. The science journals and media went wild (see Time Gate video).
And research it, finding for yourself how it is incorrect. Human culture in general, and the internet in particular, is too full of such writing for a reader to have to rely on others to recognize it. If a person is to effectively understand the universe scientifically, she must develop her own critical scientific skills.
Of course, as with any “the end/change of the world is near” prediction, one can simply wait and see. 2011 is not too far away – if our perception of time has not “collapsed” by then, we know that that prediction, at least, is incorrect.
06-11-2008
Similar Threads 
