-
NOE SIS
The Journal of the Mega Society Number 107
July 1995
EDITOR R. Rosner
5139 Balboa Blvd #303 Encino CA 91316-3430
(818) 986-9177
Here's another reminder to send in material. Maybe a miracle
will happen and it won't take three months to get published.
IN THIS ISSUE COMMENTS ON NOE918 102-104 et TO NORMA WITH LOVE
AND FAILURE
BY ROBERT DICK COMMENTS ON NOESIS 102-104 BY RON HOEFLIN
HANNON REPLIES TO HIS CRITICS IV OFFERS FOUR ARTICLES E = mC2 BY
ROBERT HANNON
PYCNOGENOL, NATURE'S MIRACLE (AND BANE OF SPELLING BEE
CONTESTANTS) BY H. SCOTT MORRIS
-
411410:141 111
11
11
1:
;
111
2
il
9.11.y11111N "
1
1 4
ci; :1111111
.
1
1
1111
11:10 111:1,9141 4.
III 41; Iii!ill 11114i 1 la.111-11' 11,11 ii It intu
11111111:11 il."21.2111111
11111011111 TI1114011 112117111111111
1 41 .042.1 721 t'lbh pi !Iiiiilliti II=i1
NE
W S
UP
ER
NU
TRIE
NT
FIG
HT S
AG
ING
AND
DIS
EA
S E!
Comments on Noesis 102 thru 104
By Robert Dick 13 Speer Street
Somerville, NJ 08876 rdick@haven. Scorn
I was glad to see Robert Hannon elaborate on his "wave analyzer"
hypothesis so as to make it even easier than before to shoot it
down. He writes (Noesis 102 p 12) "The validity of the Fourier
Series has been verified by countless measurements." Not so. The
Fourier series is mathematics, not physics. No amount of
measurement can verify or refute it.
If, he claims, we could spectrum-analyze a pulse completely and
before it ends, then the future would be determinate. This is just
what we cannot do. Mr. Hannon's argument is similar to saying that
Euclidean geometry "has been verified by countless measurements."
Therefore, parallel lines never meet, therefore the Earth is flat!
(This is only an hypothesis.)
At this point I will forsake my "psychotic obsession" (p 15)
with Mr. Hannon and move on to less trivial topics. Kevin Langdon
has provided us with a number of statements which are nontrivial
and to which I would like to respond. First, (Noesis 103, p8) on
abortion:
I think abortion is wrong, an interference with something
sacred, but I do not believe it should be illegal Prohibition of
something this popular is unworkable. It would endanger the lives
of those who feel compelled to seek out underground (and therefore
unregulated) medical facilities.
I think abortion is homicide There is no good reason why
homicide should be safe and comfortable for the killer.
Kevin quotes Scientific American on the supposed decline of the
ozone layer. This claim is pure speculation. There is no known
natural history of the ozone layer. It was never measured
systematically until a few decade ago. What, for example is the
effect of the sunspot cycle on the ozone layer? We don't know.
At the risk of sounding paranoid, let me state that! do not
trust Scientific American. It has never ever run a piece favorable
to the defense of America and the West since the cold war began.
Some say it is because the publisher's wife is a Communist. Anyway,
it publishes ideology disguised as science.
Kevin continues: "The world's rainforests, marshes.. continue to
be destroyed..." Yes, swamps and jungles are being tamed. Places
such as these, and deserts, and mountains, are all hostile to human
life Only wealthy people have the luxury of enjoying pestholes and
wildernesses. MI said, capitalism and the production of more wealth
are the only hopes orsaving" such places.
Kevin enters fantasyland in his claim that "Most scientists
studying the earth and its waters and atmosphere now believe that
global warming is a real phenomenon..." I know of one study
that
NOE818 Number 107 July 1998 page 2
-
:81tiz
I IliiI1
J
aa.tlasa A112111
F.= ;488i
-104P
f8:!]-1
effiglio
oi_;83
_ i!
WN1
m2Pi
• sont_
/
lo
8 .404„).12 si]lga
0• 3,6
25.22 4Atgloi
816.20c
zxot-lia
O,8st",
t .529
8.8..1
itmt122
-.ewta 3=
c 220
=4.0
111
4630
4.1
NO13818 Number 107 July 1998 page 3
wh
ere
do
es
eq
ua
tion
i2S
i co
me
from, E
ins
tein
els
ew
he
re h
ad
as
e....,
....tic ...r
t..* o
f • ma
teria
l pu
nt o
f ma
ts m
la
no
lon
ge
r gi.e
n h
e th
e n
ett
Ek • m
iM/E
.IC
-91
ba
th
e
• m
Cli/4
1-V
itell
2-I0
1
If we d
evelo
p th
e
O
ro o
f • serie
s. n
e o
bta
in
Ek
wh
en
V
i/C. is
sm
all C
om
pare
d w
ith u
nity
. the O
urs
of th
ese te
tras
alw
ay
s s
me
ll in c
oo
pe
r...on
wIth
the
se
co
nd
, wh
ich
les
t alo
ne
is
co
ns
ide
red
in c
las
sic
al m
ec
ha
nic
s. T
he
first te
rm K
t do
es
no
t co
nta
in th
e v
g104 ty
. an
d re
qu
ires n
o c
on
sid
era
tion
if we a
re
dealin
g o
nly
with
...atla
s* a
s to
no
. the e
nerg
y o
f a p
oin
t-m.0
S
de
pe
nd
s o
n v
elo
city
.' In th
e s
am
e a
rtiC
la. E
an
ste
ln la
ter
en
pla
ing
,te
tra
set...is
no
thin
g !e
lse th
an
th
e p
ne
rgY
P
ossessed
by th
e b
od
y....
wh
ile th
is m
ay
ex
pla
in 'N
eg
lec
ting
ma
gn
itud
es
of th
e fo
urth
an
d
hig
her
", it d
oe
s n
ot y
ield
I2 -S
I. T
he
a
erie
s o
f R -Ill is
d
eriv
ed
fro
m E
. • e
Ct/III-V
ate
.1, a
nd
, fro
m R
-K
l, to
K
r/Ill -.1
/C.1
so
t
Si. • O
to
.C.IS
IL-V
,IC
.0E
r/Ica-o
f/C*1
, •
• Er te
.
So
• me
tiIII-Vi/C
11
an
d s
inc
e to
• EY
be
fore
glu
tting
the
ligh
t ray
s.
Ek
me
t/ill-VA
/C.1
31
Th
e m
os
t as
tou
nd
ing
as
pe
ct o
f Ein
ste
in'. d
eriv
mtto
n ts
tha
t, assu
sin
g a
t is p
hysic
ally
an
d a
Igeara
lcal ly
'cite
.it do
es *e
t ap
ply
to 'b
od
ies th
at a
re n
et in
no
tion
. a
en
tire
a
na
lys
is is
pre
dic
ate
d o
n a
ss
um
ed
di rrrrrrrrr in
the
'en
erg
y" o
f • 'b
od
y' a
nd
of lig
ht ra
ys
wh
en
me
as
ure
d re
lativ
e to
tie S
Cs
th
at
are
in •
•pe
ctfic
kin
d o
f r• lath
.* ste
tso
n. If th
e S
C c
on
tain
Sa
g
Ow
"b
od
y' is
no
t in m
otio
n a
t V re
lativ
e to
the O
ther S
C, ith
st
is, V
s0
) his
eq
ua
tion.
Ea
• CM
-IV/C
lco
se
l/ft -VI
»tan)) .
be
co
me
.E
l • K,a
-1,4
an
d h
is e
ntire
an
aly
sis
Co
llap
se
s. a
s .0
11
00
01
En
• KII.M
.Er
ia-aa1 M
e • M
CI '-'E
rC
a -le
t
He-g
e • M
ill-Sill
lit.)
He
-go
- 0.0
1.1
.41
1,1
00
Sin
ce
, ac
co
rdin
g to
Ein
ste
in.
Ho
-En
• KO
• C-S
al
an
d,
HIII-E
fil a X
III • cla
-as)
Th
en
,O
te -K
M • 0
la-,a
'
an
d, a
cc
ord
ing
to E
ins
tein
.
the
kite
en
erg
Y in
the
Su
bs
titutin
g th
is in
to e
litiE
cE
-SO
.
Ito-S
lat • E
r(Ilitti -V
i/Ctil -I/
CM
-71 W
he
re d
oe
s ii -1
01
co
me
fres
? E
initta
in O
de
on
t ex
pla
in. H
ere
is
en
If the
kin
etic
...org
y o
f • ma
ss
a ts
mo
t/E. th
an
,S
et
[rift/K
IS-tit/C
M-I) • 0
a ilt
sin
ce
ligh
t su
et •le
tay
s tra
ve
l at C
. the
kin
etic
en
erg
y o
f lig
ht
mu
st b
e A
O. s
ot
An
d.
Els
. 0, S
et g
lIrIV
fiCil
aV
S/8
. eC
:en
d, .h
en
V.0
, h
is e
qu
atio
n.
Elt . •C
t/III-VtiC
2I
Set
Er m
ee
lfre
e im
hic
h h
e O
bta
ine
d E
. OC
t. is w
itho
ut a
ny
ph
ys
ica
l at
•le
na
tr•ic fo
un
da
tiee
.
NO
FS
IB N
um
ber 107 Ju
ly 1996 pag
e 14
ah
. fa
cto
r 1
/0 in
aV
tle is
du
e to
the fa
ct th
at g
sass s
uet
ac
ce
lera
te fr
ee
V.0
to V
.V. S
O its
en
ra
ge
en
erg
y is
lit of its
p
eak O
fMrg
y s
ta..
A C
han
ge in
kin
etic
meetly
du
e to
nis
ei/in
of lig
ht is
,
Ito -X
III • eC
ICC
l/Ill -../Cf/1
-I)I2
-7.1
SO b
ete
,e a
si ttin
g th
e ra
ys O
f ligh
t.
-
NOESIS Number 107 July 1996 page 4
ri
r a li H
im
nK
idgl
11
Eli
0 I
n n
i
.7,"
ii
g
2 9
. &
g.
ErP
. ti
pr
7 1
5 IL
4
E 11
"
a t
"7
5 a
3 1
E
aI f
il H
-. w
wa
k
gg
p•81
21 IN
- 80 tg
s L
W g. g
i M
-
a- 5
2 ,
e4 a
l
't a
•Z
Fr
1 a
a w
.f
0 is
2,6 I
R.
U /I
t .7, 7.: I
ma il xi
i
tia'-
1ii
er
-ed
a
; i to
aia
.ti
, E. it
IAi
§,
A tg
..'
ri ig
I a
Eli
F.
.10
a F
si
9 a -
1
`0,;
g- T
, [
;
; la
-g
o a
a 1
c.a. .
a 0. if
Ti
i in
Q
48
I i
i- i
t
8O
i r
a°
05-g E
s. gt
Su
bsti
tuti
ng
4(-
3)
into
41-5
10
dm
• d
p/C
• d
c/C
S
or
dE
m d
eC
iC
l -1
0
an
d i
nte
gra
tin
g M
ath
sid
es
,E
• m
et
((-7
De
riv
ed
4
n t
ha
s w
ay
, E
• m
Ct
as
va
lid
/o
r a
ny
sa
ss
re
ga
rd
les
s o
f A
te v
elo
cit
y O
r o
the
r d
yn
am
ics
.
Th
is d
eriv
ati
on
is p
rem
ised
on
th
at
wo
re. at
the t
ime u
np
ro
ven
th
eo
rsta
cal asp
en
el C
is •
rem
nan
t, lb
/E
MS
has
mo
me
nta
In
hiC
h a
S •
me
ch
oh
ica
l c
on
ce
pt)
wh
ich
ca
n b
e e
qu
ate
d w
ith
m
C.
IC I m
ate
is •
aaa A
aaaa .
Stu
aa
aa
(1
-11
ca
n n
ot
sta
te t
ha
t E
MI. n
es m
om
en
tum
wit
ho
ut
the m
ore
su
btl
e b
ut
vit
al p
resu
mp
tio
n
tha
t th
e s
ee
min
gly
in
de
pe
nd
en
t •M
ec
ha
nic
el. a
nd
'to
ilett
e...m
g
do
ma
ins
co
nta
in p
he
no
me
na
th
at
are
eq
uiv
ale
nt
an
d i
nte
rch
an
ge
ab
le
Th
at
mo
sre
as
o a
aa
aa
id
ea
an
th
e l
ate
19
th c
en
tury
. b
ut
On
ly i
n
theo
ry.
21
Ein
ste
in's
19
05
aa
aa
a i
vie
tie
de
ri, ro
tien
l'O
ees t
he In
erti
a o
f •
Bo
er
dep
en
d t
ipo
n it.
En
erg
Y-C
en
ten
t7. A
nn
als
. d
er P
his
it,
17
, 190S
1 A
s b
ased
on
th
e s
pecif
ic p
hysic
al sit
uati
on
fu
nd
am
en
tal to
S
pecia
l R
ela
tavit
y, tir
o d
uC
tid
int, C
artesia
n S
ystem
e o
f
Co
o a
aaaa to
iSC
s1 a
n
tra
na
late
ey
,
no
tio
n a
t v
elo
cit
y V
. S
C -K
has co
ord
inate
•ro
e ..y
.A a
nd
tim
e t
S
C-4
(0 h
at
co
ord
ina
te •
mit
s X
.Y.I
an
d
tim
e T
. T
he
co
ord
ina
te •
ros
of
the
tw
o S
Cs
are
pa
rall
el
an
d t
he
d
es w
ith
th
e I's
'is.
Velo
cit
y V
i. s
uch
th
at
the o
rig
in S
.0 is a
orta
e in
th
e d
irecti
on
o
f In
c a
aa
a a
aa
re
lati
ve
to
th
e o
rig
in .n
0.
Ea
ns
tea
n t
ars
i te
lls
as
th
at
On
th
e p
rin
cip
les
of
his
en
tra
nts
i aaaa t
ag
ati
on
('O
n t
he E
lectr
od
yn
am
ace o
f M
ora
n.;
Sp
ate
s%
de
r P
hy
sa
k.
17
, (9
05
) n
o h
as
'd
ed
uc
ed
, a
mo
ng
oth
er t
hin
gs
, th
e
follo
win
g r
esu
lt,'
Se
• E
(11
-1,4, C
1c
og
olf
.01
-Vf/
Cf1
)4
0-1
)
wh
ere
. E
the
aa
aa
a y
of
• s
ys
tem
of
pla
ne
wa
ve
s o
t li
gh
t m
ea
su
red
an
SC
-K.
Es
. t
he
en
erg
y o
f th
e S
all
e e
ys
tem
of
pla
ne
aa
aa
a o
f li
gh
t m
ea
su
red
an
SC
-Kt.
•
the
an
gle
"th
e
I. o
f th
e
wa
ve
s o
f lig
ht
makes lo
ath
th
e .-
en
. lo
t S
C-1
0.
Vth
e v
elo
cit
y o
f le
e r
ela
tive
to 4
4.0
in t
he d
irecti
on
o
fin
c a
aaa in
. C
• t
he v
elo
cit
y o
f lig
ht.
Th
en
Ein
ste
in p
roC
eli
de
i'L
et
the
re
be
• s
tati
on
ary
bo
dy
in
th
e
eyele
t, C
SC
-4),
an
d let
its a
aaaa y
-re
ferr
ed
to
th
e e
inem
CS
C -
it)
be
Co
.L
et
the e
nerg
y O
f th
e b
eefy
aaaaa lye t
o t
he s
yeth
e C
SC
-KA
1
mo
van
ga
po
ve
wit
h t
he
ve
loc
ity
Y.
be
ile
t. L
et
this
be
er s
en
d
ou
t, a
n •
dir
ecti
on
mati
ng
en
d
an
gle
•
wit
h t
he a
nis
al is
, p
lan
e
ma
les
o
f lig
ht.
of ..
....
*E
r m
ea
su
red
re
lati
ve
ly t
o-K
1.
and
Sie
ult
an
eau
sly
an
gen
et
tin
en
tity
of
lig
ht
in t
he O
pp
osit
e
dir
ec
tio
n.
Me
an
wh
ile
th
e b
od
y r
em
etn
e a
t re
st
ma
th r
es
pe
ct
to t
he
a
syste
m (
SC
-K
).T
he p
rin
cip
le o
/ en
erg
y o
ust
man
ly t
o t
his
p
ro
ce
ss
. a
nd
in
fa
ct
(by
th
e p
rin
cip
le o
f rela
taw
Ity, p
ith
resp
ect
to b
oth
sis
tas
of
co
ord
ina
tes
. If
.. c
all
th
e e
ne
rg
y o
f th
e b
ee
r
aft
er
the e
en
.. .. o
f lig
ht
C411 o
r m
u)
resp
ecta
velv
, ro
nau
red
re
l a
a a
aI
y to
ES
C-4
(1 o
r C
SC
-Kt]
resp
ecti
vely
. th
en
by o
mp
lOyeeet
of
(eq
uati
on
la
-Ill w
e o
bta
in,
la-a
l
Ho
mil
“.4
erc
ri-
ev
iCic
os
ol/
Tc
l-v
tiC
tO
.0
,-([
1.4
viC
ico
so
liS
ci-
vi/C
311
Ho
•H
ticE
r/1
11-V
, /C
,4-S
1
Sy
su
btr
ea
tio
n p
. o
bta
in D
om
th
es
e e
qu
ati
on
s
nio
-Eo
l-11441(-
61141 •
Sr00/0
1-V
irC
8)]
-1)
4-4
1
Th
etw
o
at th
e
lore
M-E
oc a
aaa a
ny A
n (
10-4
41 h
ave
sam
ple
ph
ysic
al sig
n if iC
• a
...
H e
n,
•r•
eh
erg
y v
alu
es
of
the
to
me
bo
dy
re
ferre
d t
o t
oo
sy
stm
es
ot
co
o .
. i
aa
tem
s
na
rl's
ore
au
m
oti
on
re
lati
ve
ly to
each
oth
er, th
e b
od
y b
ein
g a
t rest
in o
ne o
f th
etw
o s
ys
tem
s (
SC
-K).
Th
u.
it
as
cle
ar
tha
t th
e d
iffe
ren
ce
14
-11
c
an
t
he
kin
eti
c e
ne
rg
y K
of
the
bo
dy
, w
ith
re
sp
ec
t to
th
e o
the
r f
init
e,.
(S
C-K
S),
on
ly b
y a
n a
aa
a
aa
co
ns
tan
t (0
). w
hic
h
dep
en
ds o
n t
he c
ho
ice O
f th
e a
rbit
rary
ad
s. aaaaa c
on
sta
nts
of
the
arg
on
H a
n4
E.
Th
us
me
ma
y p
lac
es
Ho
-go
5 N
o •
041 -
51
P4
41
1 -
Ell
1 e
40
1)
• 0
11
6)
aa
aa
a 0
do
es
no
t c
ha
ng
e d
uri
ng
th
e e
a a
aa
aa
a a
t li
gh
t. S
o n
e N
iro
to
-K
OE
rC
(1//
(1 -
V./
C.
)1 -
I)
The
kin
eti
c e
nerg
y o
f th
e b
od
y w
ith
resp
ect
to C
SC
-del cis
aaaaa
as
• r
es
ult
of
the
o
f lig
ht, an
d t
he a
mo
un
t o
f
the
da
mir
mti
on
is
in
de
pe
nd
en
t o
f th
e p
rop
. O
f th
e b
od
y
Ne
gle
cti
ng
ma
gn
itu
de
s o
f th
e f
ou
rth
an
d h
igh
er o
rd
ers
, to
e m
ay
p
iece
✓e -1011
5ir
ilit
/C0 •
Ca -e
l
Th
rou
gh
th
is p
oin
t. le. th
e m
ass o
f th
e 'b
od
y', is n
ot
men
tio
ned
in
a/h
ab
eas
. * a
naly
sis
. m
On
es n
ot
ap
pear in
IE
-7/ o
r 1
2-4
1.
Th
ee
iin
ete
in a
aaaa
. 11 •
bet g
ives o
ff !m
ise
rly
Cr i
n t
he
te
rm
of
ra
dia
tio
n,
it.
ea
se
d
imin
ish
es
by
Er/C
l. T
he
fa
ct
tha
t th
e e
ne
rg
y w
ith
dra
wn
fro
m t
he
b
od
y "
roess e
nerg
y o
f ra
dia
tio
n e
vid
en
tly m
aim
s n
o d
iffe
ren
ce, so
th
at
me a
re
led
to
th
e m
ore
ga
so
ho
l c
on
clu
sio
n t
ha
t
Th
em
aaa o
f •
bo
dy a
s •
erasu
re o
f ate
en
erg
y -
co
nte
nti
at
the
en
erg
y c
ha
ng
es
by
Er,
the
mo
os
ch
an
ge
s i
n t
he
•a
•
ease b
y
NO
8811
1 N
umbe
r 107
Jul
y 19
95 p
egs
13
-
NO11818 Number 107 July 1995 page B
Sara
so
ta F
l 34.2
36-5
1.1
6
an
d, r
rrrr to
C b
ecau
se E
AR
a w
ays /O
we e
t Cm
p e
d11-4
I d
p • CO.
li.g)
Sin
ce
the
fts
So
/10
81
EA
T J
. HA
NN
ON
4473 S
tag
ho
rn L
an
eS
ara
so
ta F
L 3
42
3S
-56
26
15
Ju
ne
95
Ric
k R
osn
er • 4
0E
SIS
• 509 B
alb
oa B
lvd
no
lo° C
A 9
1316-3
430
De
ar R
ick
.
En
clo
sed
are fo
ur m
ore a
rtic
les in
vo
lvin
g m
y c
rackp
ot s
cie
nce.
mitic
h y
ou
ata
y p
ub
lish
in N
OM
E f y
ou
.an
t.
11
MA
SS
A
RO
R
EL
AT
IVE
VE
LO
CIT
Y o
ffers
• fairly
sim
ple
ey
pla
na
tion
O
f the n
Op
aren
t varle
ts.. o
f mass w
ith ....la
t... velo
city
. usin
g
on
ly e
lvie
eic
al. p
hy
sic
s. I d
eriv
e th
ea
aa
aa
c m
as
s e
qu
atio
n'.
us
ing
on
ly th
e p
hy
sic
s o
f Co
ulo
mb
an
d N
ew
ton
. Th
e o
nly
..n
ow. Id
ea
invo
lved
is th
e r
eco
gn
ition
of e
n e
sta
bla
•hee h
itt of n
atu
re.
Th
is is
en
tirely
orig
inal w
ith m
e.
da
011 T
INE
DIL
AT
ION
...pla
ins th
e a
pp
aren
t inc 0
0000 o
f the
halt-life
of u
nsta
ble
partic
lee m
ovio
1 a
t no
r lig
ht s
peed
usin
g
on
ly c
las
sic
al p
hy
sic
s.
Th
e o
nly
"n
eer id
ea in
vo
lve* a
s th
e
✓eco
gn
ition
of a
n e
sta
el lo
lled
fact o
f natu
re.
Th
is is
en
tir
ely
with
me
31 g
oft is
oo
stly
his
toric
al a
nd
ad
uc
ata
on
al. I'm
su
re
mo
st o
f
Yo
ur
read
er s
are
no
t aw
are
tha
t E.C
. w
as
di•c
oy
ere
a b
efo
re
Ein
ste
in,
an
d d
oes n
ot r
eq
uir
e S
patia
l Rela
tivity
. I'm •Is
o s
ure
that o
ast h
ave n
ever s
een
Ein
ste
in
in. d
eriv
atio
n.
Th
an
pap
er
co
nta
ins o
ne o
f the p
re-E
ino
tein
deriv
atio
ns o
f that e
qu
atio
n. a
nd
E
inS
tein
's 1
90
5 r
ela
tivis
tic d
eriv
atio
n . T
he
on
ly N
an
no
n c
on
ten
t o
the
r tha
n try
Co
olle
Ctire
aa
aa
a tre
e in
pa
r 3, a
n w
hic
h I p
oin
t ou
t th
e m
os
t gla
rin
g fit. (th
ere
are
mo
n. o
the
rs
I an
Ein
ste
ln. s
der1
aaa a
a .
I su
sp
ec
t tha
t if Ein
ste
in
S
de
riva
tion
alo
ne
we
re p
ub
lish
ed
un
de
r
my n
am
e r
ath
er th
an
Ein
ste
inyo
ur r
ead
ers w
ou
ld c
all it
cra
ckp
ot s
c le
ns • .... a
nd
they e
Ou
Id b
e rig
ht.
41 T
HE
DE
RIV
AT
ION
S O
F T
HE
EIN
ST
EIN
-LO
RE
NT
Z T
RA
NS
FO
RM
AT
ION
offe
rs
00000 fo
od
P
ro
of
that
bo
tho
fE
inste
in's
d ▪ o
o o
o lio
ns
are
inc
orre
ct
rh
.. p
ap
er ••••
pre
sen
ted
on
2
4 M
ay
95
at th
e r
eg
ion
al m
ee
ting
of th
e
AN
IS
no
lo a
t 0.6
'oh
o.e
sta
te
uo
.vo
roity
. It iS Ile
ven
teen
Pag
es lo
ng
becau
se I q
uo
te E
inste
in a
t le
ng
th.. th
at m
y r
ea
de
rs
wa
ll kn
o• w
he
t he
ac
tua
lly s
aid
las
o
pp
osed
to th
e S
E O
ate
n fO
un
d in
textb
oo
ks I. It a
lso
inclu
des
Pro
of th
at th
e g
en
eric
t 00
00
f orm
atio
n e
qu
atio
ns
ca
n n
ot p
rod
uc
e
the
EL
T w
itho
ut ...r
tmC
.X/T
.It is
writte
n a
s th
ree in
dep
en
den
t
tertia
n., e
hiC
h c
ou
ld b
e p
ub
lish
ed
em
par•te
lY.
best re
gard
*,
EM
CO
.T /IT
Ren
ted
1.4
Ju
ne 9
5
E
mE
l
RO
BE
RT
J. H
AN
NO
N4
47
3 S
tag
ho
rn L
an
e
14
Ju
ne
95
Ein
ste
ints
alm
os
t un
I 00000 Ily
creo
ited
math
the d
ieco
very
1p
ub
lish
ed
In 1
90
5, o
f the
wo
r id-fa
eo
us r
ela
tion
sh
ip E
. aE
l, w
hic
h w
as th
e p
rem
ise fo
r th
e
develo
pm
en
t of th
e a
tom
ic O
gee a
nd
n
uc
lea
r po
we
r pla
nts
.O
thers d
eriv
ed
E
0 m
C. y
ears b
efo
re
Ein
ste
in, u
sin
g th
e c
las
sic
al p
hy
sic
s o
f Ne
wto
n o
ne
Ha
sw
ell.
Mu
ee
rou
s e
sp
er a
min
es
ind
ica
te th
at, a
n n
uc
lea
r rea
ctio
ns
inv
olv
ing
a
los
s o
f ma
ss
, Efo
es
ap
pe
ar to
eq
ua
l mC
i.T
his
is
ge
ne
rally
accep
ted
all p
ro
of o
f Ein
ste
in s
Th
eo
ry o
f Sp
ecia
l Rela
tivity
. ...e
ver, is
the p
hysic
al r
easo
n fo
r th
is a
ctu
ally
that P
eS
tula
ted
b
y E
inste
in'
Wh
ile E
inste
in.1
905 d
rrrrr flog
' is b
ased
on
his
Th
eo
ry O
f Sp
ecia
l R
ela
tivity
, an
1946 h
e p
ub
lish
ed
has n
on
-rela
tivie
tac 'E
lem
en
tary
Deriv
atio
n o
f the E
qu
ivale
nce o
f Mass a
nd
En
erg
y". w
hic
h is
based
o
n
the "
law
of
ab
erratio
n o
f ligh
t'.
Th
e p
re-E
inste
in d
eriv
atio
ns. a
re p
red
icate
d O
n U
h . id
es th
at
ele
ctro
mag
netic
rad
iatio
n tE
MA
/ su
ch
am
ligh
t has ...C
antu
."
•ne
▪ w
ee. ts "
Pr
nR
osw
ell c
•lcu
late
d th
e r
rrrr IF
I ....fled
bY
E
MS
o
f rrrrr y
1E
/ to
bra
F'S
i
.h
ere
C
a th
e v
elo
city
of P
ro
pag
atio
n o
f Eem
pty
Slige•.
of/a
t A
S th
e ra
te o
f ch
an
ge o
f rrrrrr w
ith tim
e.
In N
ew
ton
ian
me
ch
an
ics
,F
OS
SC
OI
ulu
ir• mein
e a
nd
• • •CC
•lead
itiOn
. An
d,
ea • a
ctin
(C1
ph
ec
o. p
• ac
tee
nty
• • eV
, idle
r. V
• Ve
loc
ity.
1/ O
ne p
re-E
inste
in d
eriv
atio
n is
as fo
llow
s.
F • d
ertit
ll/ClId
Eid
t)(1
-11 .
Th
erefo
re,4
4E
/dtlit
elp
/Oti •
. atio
p
Th
en
. as
su
min
g C
inc
on
sta
nt.
tip
• C
, or p
• E
/C1
1.4
1
HO
IST
S N
um
ber 107 M
y 1995 page 12
-
the relationship was very risky. Actually. I cheated. I assigned
more points to the pluses to make
it come out positive. My feelings for this object of my grand
passion were precisely neutral! I
date my recovery from Norma's rejection of me from that
point.
Soon I began to reach this assessment of Norms She was a
virtuoso of failure. You name the
mode of failure, and Wit was at all possible Norma would do it
And she would continue to find
new ways to fail Some time after I got out of the hospital I
found out that she was pregnant. Of
course. She hadn't been an unwed mother before, so she had to do
it. The last time I saw her
was a few months after her son Jason was born. The psychologist
told me a year or two later that
Norma married a friend she had known previously.
Years later, after better experiences of friendship and love, I
was utterly appalled by the
thought that once the thing I had wanted most was to marry
Norma. Of all the things she did,
that she once totaled a car she was driving because of an
epileptic seizure summed up for me her
total lack of responsibility.
Norma, my lady of fitilure, I remember you still with affection.
You were the first stranger, the
very first, to share with me the milk of human kindness in a way
I could fully accept. I remember
you from a distance, and I'm glad it's from a distance. You
always generated as much erotic heat
in those around you as you possibly could, and then—you moved
on. I hope you have found some
measure of peace and health, as I have. But I doubt it.
arrogant who always presume to know bettor. Apparently you are
one of that truly sad group who believe that only they are
comnpotont to hold views on any complex subject.
7) Rick and Chris publish my writings because they obviously
receive an inadequate supply of printable stuff from the members.
Langan is an example. Its possible that there is a great idea
buried in his jargon, but it is not available to the rest of us
because he is unable to express his ideas in plain English. Early
on, I attempted correspondence with him, but gave up when he tried
to impose rules on my use of the language.
Personally, I will be pleased to be nothing but a subscriber to
NOESIS, when my writings are squeezed out by the truly superior
ideas and views presented by the great geniuses who are members of
Mega.
In the two years or so that I have been a subscriber, I have not
found much of genius-level merit in NOESIS.
El) You refer to my "prolific output of material at a level of
quality significantly below the standard, such as it is, of this
journal."
What is the basis of your judgment of the quality of my
writings?
9) I look forward to receiving your answers to my questions, so
that I may have even a glimmer of understanding of the workings of
an intellect purported to be vastly superior to mine.
Most sincerely,
Robert J. Hannon
PS, My unpublished paper THE DERIVATIONS OF THE EINSTEIN-LORENTZ
TRANSFORMATION will be presented on 24 May to the regional meeting
of the American Aassociation for the Advancement of Science to be
held at the University of Oklahoma.
/1011003 Number 107 July 1906 page 11
NOEBIS Number 107 July 1996 page 6
-
ROBERT J HANNON 4473 Staghorn Lane Sarasota FL 34238-5626 26
April 95
KEVIN LANGDON, Box 795, Berkeley CA 94701
Dear Kevin,
Reading your letter on p9 of NOESIS 104, I wonder what can be
the factual premises of your gratuitous slurs.
1) You say "Mr Hannon's writings are full of elementary errors
and show that the author has not taken the trouble to understand
the things he's criticizing."
What are these "elementary errors"? What is the basis of your
judgment that they are errors?
What is the factual basis for your judgment that I have not
taken the trouble to understand the things I criticize? Clearly
from your later comments, you don't understand those subjects, so
how can you judge my level of understanding?
2) you go on, "Others with more expertise in this field than I
have pointed out many of these errors; I will not add to their
,critiques."
b4ho are the experts to which you refer? When did they point out
"many" (indeed, a single one) of my errors? I'll appreciate
specific references, as I am unaware of any cold, objective,
scientifically-sound refutation of any of my views by any member of
Mega or ISPE.
Do you presume that anyone who disagrees with me is necessarily
more "expert" than I? If so, what is the premise of such a
view?
3) Fundamental physics (such as relativity) presents a challenge
to the intellect. I find it appalling that so few members of any of
the "High 10" groups seem truly interested in the subject. I also
find it truly peculiar that so many claim a lack of understanding
of freshman-level math.
I am bored to distraction by articles on religion, the colon, 10
testing, and puzzles. Nevertheless, I read them in NOESIS, in the
hope of finding something of value. I had hoped to find really
innovative thinking in the "High 10" groups. I have been sadly
disappointed.
4) Chris Langan's "letters" to me in NOESIS have been pure
arrogant BS. He simply doesn't comprehend the fundamentals of
special relativity.
5) You say, "Ron Yannone makes Robert Hannon look rational."
What is the factual basis of your judgment of my
rationality?
6) I barely knimminlistamodffscesTiiir rtikpia defending me as
an individual. She was defending the Intilldetual right of people
to hold and express unorthodox views without being ridiculed by
the
COPY i5Jciue9S"
May 3, 1995 Ronald K. Hoeflin P. O. Box 539 New York, NY
10101
Dear Rick Rosner:
The following are a few comments on the last three issues of
Noesis --particularly the remarks of Kevin Langdon.
Cl) In issue #103, page 7, Kevin says regarding the idea of Rick
Rosner and Chris Cole to require ten pages of material from each
member per year, "Who the hell do you two bozos think you are to
dictate to the members of the Mega—STEiety?" Yet Kevin apparently
sees no dictating when he remarks in issue #104, page 6, regarding
the verbal problems I con-structed to which Chris Cole revealed his
answers (one of which was wrong, incidentally), "No item that has
been the subject of these discussions can be used [in any new test
I. Ron Hoeflin, construct] as the answers are now public
information." But since the circulation of Noesis is only 25 or 30,
I personally do not consider this sufficiently "public" to bar use
of the test items in, say, Omni magazine. I would simply have to
ex-clude the readers of Noesis froi—fiking the test. If Noesis
readers were to share their answerniTh, others, that would be
little different from a person who scored high on the LAIT or Mega
Tests sharing his or her answers with others--a shortcoming that
none of these self-administered tests are immune to. To sum up,
then. Kevin does not speak for me on this matter, and I really do
not appreciate his ex cathedra tone.
Kevin also asserts in issue 103, page 11, that "The Hyper Test
Ron has written about, which will contain his best spatial
problems, will be much less strongly loaded on crystallized
intelligence and will have a higher ceiling than the Mega Test."
Here again Kevin is jumping the gun and speaking for me when in
fiCi—his assertion is incorrect. If I do con-struct a Hyper Test,
it is likely to consist of 100 of the best items from my Mega,
lifirl,—TrZ Ultra tests, of which 50 would be verbal analogies and
50 would be non-verbal Conceivably the test could be divided into a
separate verbal test of 50 items and a non-verbal test of 50 items.
The latter would then be suitable for translation into foreign
languages. It would probably include some numerical items, since I
do not think I have enough spatial items in my three tests to
construct an independent test. At any rate, I have not reached any
final conclusions about all this, since I have been focusing my
energies on the completion of my book. Decoding Philosophy, which
already exceeds 1,000 typed, double-spaced pages. I may never
complete my Ultra Test, much less a Hyper Test or some purely
spatial test derivative from the latter if no outlet for the test
mani-fests itself. Neither Omni nor the Triple Nine Society has
expressed an interest so far. (Triple Nine had, through one of its
officers, Clint Williams, expressed an interest in a timed,
supervised test consisting of multiple-choice items derived from my
Mega and Titan tests, but Mr. Williams em seed strangely incapable
of fathoming the need-TB—renorm such a test
rather than relying on norms based on untimed,
non-multiple-choice tests. In any case, when I suggested to Clint
that he make use of my new Ultra Test, perhaps suitably modified
for timed, supervised use, he evinced zero interest in the
proposal. Kevin's discussion of the low difference between timed
and untimed test scores in issue #103, page 18, is perhaps intended
as an indirect support for Mr. Williams position.)
NORMS Number 107 July 1996 page 7
-
ROBERT 3. HANNON 2 May 95
4473 Staghorn Lane Sarasota FL 34238-5626
Rick Rosner • NOESIS • 5139 Balboa Blvd • Encino CA
91316-3430
Dear Rick,
In response to Robert Low's A BRIEF NOTE ON THE DERIVATION OF
THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION (Noesis 103, p4).
1) I have not (yet) published anything in TELICOM or NOES'S or
elsewhere in which I claim that the ELT is "wrong". 1 have said
that (assuming it is otherwise correct) it is algebraically
incomplete by virtue o/ not being reduced to its simplest possible
form. As they stand the ELT equations are physical impossibilities
because they are dimensionally incorrect.
2) Your argument that the ELT is predicated on the conditional
"hypothesis".
xP = CtP if and only if XP n CtP"
(which is the same as x/tmc if and only if x*/t'=C.)
indicates only that you do not remember that the results of
conditional analyses are valid only when all conditions are
fulfilled. The ELT derived on that premise is true only when,
wP = CtP and = CtP
(which is the same as x/t = C and x'/t' = C.)
and can not be applied to situations in which that equality is
not true.
You have actually proven my point.
Your conditional statement may be "the hypothesis used" where
you operate, but it isn't elsewhere; it changes nothing.
No such conditional statement appears in either of Einstein's
derivations. It does not appear in any of the many "different"
derivations I have read, excepting only the one which includes your
"hypothesis".
3) What do you imagine the constant velocities V and C means in
physics and kinematics?
Best regards,
34, Robert 3. Hannon
(2) In issue 104, page 13, Kevin sums up his criticism of Ron
Yannone's Creationism by stating, "'Creation science' is an
oxymoron. And Ron Yannone makes Robert Hannon look rational." Yet
we get a glimpse of Kevin's own bizarre intellectual landscape when
we see his references In issue 104, page 11, to Gurdjieff and
Ouspensky as his own intellectual gurus. Since I have not studied
either of these writers sufficiently to pontificate on their
shortcomings, let me try a different approach.
I think it can be shown that Kevin's critique of free will
suffers from analogous intellectual problems to those that
Creationism does. What Creationism can't adequately explain is why
it is as if the world were billions of years old rather than the
mere thousand; specified in the Bible. Fossils could perhaps be
explained as artifacts that God left around to lead the unfaithful
astray. But then God would be a deceiver, which seems Inconsistent
with his purportedly all-good nature. The ancient Greeks Invented a
dictum in connection with the motions of the planets, namely, that
the scientist's role is to "save the appearances." We might add to
this the dictum of William of Ockham that "entities are not to be
multiplied without necessity," which means, in other words, that we
should save the appearances with the most efficient and simple
intellectual machinery possible if we want to get at the truth. Now
just as Creationists leave the fossils out there dangling in
mid-air without efficient explanation, we find that Kevin also
leaves something out of his system of thought, dangling in mid-air.
In issue 104, page 7, he criticizes vocabulary items on the grounds
that they merely require "familiarity" rahter than "struggle." But
in issue 103, page 12, he says that we have "delusions of agency,"
since Kevin believes, as he remarks on that same page, that
"'voluntary' muscular action" can be given a "mechanical," i.e.,
deterministic, explana-tion. Now the problem with mechanism is that
it has no evident use for a feeling of struggle or muscular strain
at all. The feelings are dangling out there in mid-air Just as
fossils are for Creationists with no rationale for their
existence.
The puzzle is that Kevin appears to struggle mightily to
convince us of his points of view. But if this whole process is
mechanical, then what possible difference could it make what we
believe? We would be like shadows who are condemned to go wherever
our masters walk. The decisions are not our concern, since we
merely fall in line with thatever Destiny--in the form of a
mechanized universe--has in store for us. So there is really an
Inherent contradiction in Kevin's system, just as there is one in
the Creationist's position. Neither position saves the appearances
efficiently and economically. One of the major goals of my own
book, Decoding Philosophy, will be to show how virtually all of the
major metaphysical outlooks that have been devised, including both
mechanism and mysticism, can be integrated within a single coherent
and elegant system of thought. without slipping. I hope, into any
form of "crackpotism."
Sincerely,
a,1 NORMS Number 107 July l96 pegs a
NO3818 Number 107 July 1998 page 8
-
ROBERT 3. HANNON 2 May 95
4473 Staghorn Lane Sarasota FL 34238-5626
Rick Rosner • NOESIS • 5139 Balboa Blvd • Encino CA
91316-3430
Dear Rick,
In response to Robert Low's A BRIEF NOTE ON THE DERIVATION OF
THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION (Noesis 103, p4).
1) I have not (yet) published anything in TELICOM or NOES'S or
elsewhere in which I claim that the ELT is "wrong". 1 have said
that (assuming it is otherwise correct) it is algebraically
incomplete by virtue o/ not being reduced to its simplest possible
form. As they stand the ELT equations are physical impossibilities
because they are dimensionally incorrect.
2) Your argument that the ELT is predicated on the conditional
"hypothesis".
xP = CtP if and only if XP n CtP"
(which is the same as x/tmc if and only if x*/t'=C.)
indicates only that you do not remember that the results of
conditional analyses are valid only when all conditions are
fulfilled. The ELT derived on that premise is true only when,
wP = CtP and = CtP
(which is the same as x/t = C and x'/t' = C.)
and can not be applied to situations in which that equality is
not true.
You have actually proven my point.
Your conditional statement may be "the hypothesis used" where
you operate, but it isn't elsewhere; it changes nothing.
No such conditional statement appears in either of Einstein's
derivations. It does not appear in any of the many "different"
derivations I have read, excepting only the one which includes your
"hypothesis".
3) What do you imagine the constant velocities V and C means in
physics and kinematics?
Best regards,
34, Robert 3. Hannon
(2) In issue 104, page 13, Kevin sums up his criticism of Ron
Yannone's Creationism by stating, "'Creation science' is an
oxymoron. And Ron Yannone makes Robert Hannon look rational." Yet
we get a glimpse of Kevin's own bizarre intellectual landscape when
we see his references In issue 104, page 11, to Gurdjieff and
Ouspensky as his own intellectual gurus. Since I have not studied
either of these writers sufficiently to pontificate on their
shortcomings, let me try a different approach.
I think it can be shown that Kevin's critique of free will
suffers from analogous intellectual problems to those that
Creationism does. What Creationism can't adequately explain is why
it is as if the world were billions of years old rather than the
mere thousand; specified in the Bible. Fossils could perhaps be
explained as artifacts that God left around to lead the unfaithful
astray. But then God would be a deceiver, which seems Inconsistent
with his purportedly all-good nature. The ancient Greeks Invented a
dictum in connection with the motions of the planets, namely, that
the scientist's role is to "save the appearances." We might add to
this the dictum of William of Ockham that "entities are not to be
multiplied without necessity," which means, in other words, that we
should save the appearances with the most efficient and simple
intellectual machinery possible if we want to get at the truth. Now
just as Creationists leave the fossils out there dangling in
mid-air without efficient explanation, we find that Kevin also
leaves something out of his system of thought, dangling in mid-air.
In issue 104, page 7, he criticizes vocabulary items on the grounds
that they merely require "familiarity" rahter than "struggle." But
in issue 103, page 12, he says that we have "delusions of agency,"
since Kevin believes, as he remarks on that same page, that
"'voluntary' muscular action" can be given a "mechanical," i.e.,
deterministic, explana-tion. Now the problem with mechanism is that
it has no evident use for a feeling of struggle or muscular strain
at all. The feelings are dangling out there in mid-air Just as
fossils are for Creationists with no rationale for their
existence.
The puzzle is that Kevin appears to struggle mightily to
convince us of his points of view. But if this whole process is
mechanical, then what possible difference could it make what we
believe? We would be like shadows who are condemned to go wherever
our masters walk. The decisions are not our concern, since we
merely fall in line with thatever Destiny--in the form of a
mechanized universe--has in store for us. So there is really an
Inherent contradiction in Kevin's system, just as there is one in
the Creationist's position. Neither position saves the appearances
efficiently and economically. One of the major goals of my own
book, Decoding Philosophy, will be to show how virtually all of the
major metaphysical outlooks that have been devised, including both
mechanism and mysticism, can be integrated within a single coherent
and elegant system of thought. without slipping. I hope, into any
form of "crackpotism."
Sincerely,
a,1 NORMS Number 107 July l96 pegs a
NO3818 Number 107 July 1998 page 8
-
ROBERT J HANNON 4473 Staghorn Lane Sarasota FL 34238-5626 26
April 95
KEVIN LANGDON, Box 795, Berkeley CA 94701
Dear Kevin,
Reading your letter on p9 of NOESIS 104, I wonder what can be
the factual premises of your gratuitous slurs.
1) You say "Mr Hannon's writings are full of elementary errors
and show that the author has not taken the trouble to understand
the things he's criticizing."
What are these "elementary errors"? What is the basis of your
judgment that they are errors?
What is the factual basis for your judgment that I have not
taken the trouble to understand the things I criticize? Clearly
from your later comments, you don't understand those subjects, so
how can you judge my level of understanding?
2) you go on, "Others with more expertise in this field than I
have pointed out many of these errors; I will not add to their
,critiques."
b4ho are the experts to which you refer? When did they point out
"many" (indeed, a single one) of my errors? I'll appreciate
specific references, as I am unaware of any cold, objective,
scientifically-sound refutation of any of my views by any member of
Mega or ISPE.
Do you presume that anyone who disagrees with me is necessarily
more "expert" than I? If so, what is the premise of such a
view?
3) Fundamental physics (such as relativity) presents a challenge
to the intellect. I find it appalling that so few members of any of
the "High 10" groups seem truly interested in the subject. I also
find it truly peculiar that so many claim a lack of understanding
of freshman-level math.
I am bored to distraction by articles on religion, the colon, 10
testing, and puzzles. Nevertheless, I read them in NOESIS, in the
hope of finding something of value. I had hoped to find really
innovative thinking in the "High 10" groups. I have been sadly
disappointed.
4) Chris Langan's "letters" to me in NOESIS have been pure
arrogant BS. He simply doesn't comprehend the fundamentals of
special relativity.
5) You say, "Ron Yannone makes Robert Hannon look rational."
What is the factual basis of your judgment of my
rationality?
6) I barely knimminlistamodffscesTiiir rtikpia defending me as
an individual. She was defending the Intilldetual right of people
to hold and express unorthodox views without being ridiculed by
the
COPY i5Jciue9S"
May 3, 1995 Ronald K. Hoeflin P. O. Box 539 New York, NY
10101
Dear Rick Rosner:
The following are a few comments on the last three issues of
Noesis --particularly the remarks of Kevin Langdon.
Cl) In issue #103, page 7, Kevin says regarding the idea of Rick
Rosner and Chris Cole to require ten pages of material from each
member per year, "Who the hell do you two bozos think you are to
dictate to the members of the Mega—STEiety?" Yet Kevin apparently
sees no dictating when he remarks in issue #104, page 6, regarding
the verbal problems I con-structed to which Chris Cole revealed his
answers (one of which was wrong, incidentally), "No item that has
been the subject of these discussions can be used [in any new test
I. Ron Hoeflin, construct] as the answers are now public
information." But since the circulation of Noesis is only 25 or 30,
I personally do not consider this sufficiently "public" to bar use
of the test items in, say, Omni magazine. I would simply have to
ex-clude the readers of Noesis froi—fiking the test. If Noesis
readers were to share their answerniTh, others, that would be
little different from a person who scored high on the LAIT or Mega
Tests sharing his or her answers with others--a shortcoming that
none of these self-administered tests are immune to. To sum up,
then. Kevin does not speak for me on this matter, and I really do
not appreciate his ex cathedra tone.
Kevin also asserts in issue 103, page 11, that "The Hyper Test
Ron has written about, which will contain his best spatial
problems, will be much less strongly loaded on crystallized
intelligence and will have a higher ceiling than the Mega Test."
Here again Kevin is jumping the gun and speaking for me when in
fiCi—his assertion is incorrect. If I do con-struct a Hyper Test,
it is likely to consist of 100 of the best items from my Mega,
lifirl,—TrZ Ultra tests, of which 50 would be verbal analogies and
50 would be non-verbal Conceivably the test could be divided into a
separate verbal test of 50 items and a non-verbal test of 50 items.
The latter would then be suitable for translation into foreign
languages. It would probably include some numerical items, since I
do not think I have enough spatial items in my three tests to
construct an independent test. At any rate, I have not reached any
final conclusions about all this, since I have been focusing my
energies on the completion of my book. Decoding Philosophy, which
already exceeds 1,000 typed, double-spaced pages. I may never
complete my Ultra Test, much less a Hyper Test or some purely
spatial test derivative from the latter if no outlet for the test
mani-fests itself. Neither Omni nor the Triple Nine Society has
expressed an interest so far. (Triple Nine had, through one of its
officers, Clint Williams, expressed an interest in a timed,
supervised test consisting of multiple-choice items derived from my
Mega and Titan tests, but Mr. Williams em seed strangely incapable
of fathoming the need-TB—renorm such a test
rather than relying on norms based on untimed,
non-multiple-choice tests. In any case, when I suggested to Clint
that he make use of my new Ultra Test, perhaps suitably modified
for timed, supervised use, he evinced zero interest in the
proposal. Kevin's discussion of the low difference between timed
and untimed test scores in issue #103, page 18, is perhaps intended
as an indirect support for Mr. Williams position.)
NORMS Number 107 July 1996 page 7
-
the relationship was very risky. Actually. I cheated. I assigned
more points to the pluses to make
it come out positive. My feelings for this object of my grand
passion were precisely neutral! I
date my recovery from Norma's rejection of me from that
point.
Soon I began to reach this assessment of Norms She was a
virtuoso of failure. You name the
mode of failure, and Wit was at all possible Norma would do it
And she would continue to find
new ways to fail Some time after I got out of the hospital I
found out that she was pregnant. Of
course. She hadn't been an unwed mother before, so she had to do
it. The last time I saw her
was a few months after her son Jason was born. The psychologist
told me a year or two later that
Norma married a friend she had known previously.
Years later, after better experiences of friendship and love, I
was utterly appalled by the
thought that once the thing I had wanted most was to marry
Norma. Of all the things she did,
that she once totaled a car she was driving because of an
epileptic seizure summed up for me her
total lack of responsibility.
Norma, my lady of fitilure, I remember you still with affection.
You were the first stranger, the
very first, to share with me the milk of human kindness in a way
I could fully accept. I remember
you from a distance, and I'm glad it's from a distance. You
always generated as much erotic heat
in those around you as you possibly could, and then—you moved
on. I hope you have found some
measure of peace and health, as I have. But I doubt it.
arrogant who always presume to know bettor. Apparently you are
one of that truly sad group who believe that only they are
comnpotont to hold views on any complex subject.
7) Rick and Chris publish my writings because they obviously
receive an inadequate supply of printable stuff from the members.
Langan is an example. Its possible that there is a great idea
buried in his jargon, but it is not available to the rest of us
because he is unable to express his ideas in plain English. Early
on, I attempted correspondence with him, but gave up when he tried
to impose rules on my use of the language.
Personally, I will be pleased to be nothing but a subscriber to
NOESIS, when my writings are squeezed out by the truly superior
ideas and views presented by the great geniuses who are members of
Mega.
In the two years or so that I have been a subscriber, I have not
found much of genius-level merit in NOESIS.
El) You refer to my "prolific output of material at a level of
quality significantly below the standard, such as it is, of this
journal."
What is the basis of your judgment of the quality of my
writings?
9) I look forward to receiving your answers to my questions, so
that I may have even a glimmer of understanding of the workings of
an intellect purported to be vastly superior to mine.
Most sincerely,
Robert J. Hannon
PS, My unpublished paper THE DERIVATIONS OF THE EINSTEIN-LORENTZ
TRANSFORMATION will be presented on 24 May to the regional meeting
of the American Aassociation for the Advancement of Science to be
held at the University of Oklahoma.
/1011003 Number 107 July 1906 page 11
NOEBIS Number 107 July 1996 page 6
-
NO
1181
8 N
umbe
r 1
07
Ju
ly 1
995 p
age
B
Sarasota Fl 34.236-51.16
and, rrrrr to C because EAR a ways /Owe et Cm
p ed 11-4I dp • CO. li.g)
Since thefts
So
/1081EAT J. HANNON 4473 Staghorn Lane Sarasota FL 3423S-5626
15 June 95
Rick Rosner • 40ESIS • 509 Balboa Blvd nolo° CA 91316-3430
Dear Rick.
Enclosed are four more articles involving my crackpot
science.
mitich you atay publish in NOME f you .ant.
11 MASS ARO RELATIVE VELOCITY offers • fairly simple eyplanation
Of the nOparent varlets.. of mass with ....lat... velocity.
using
only elvieeical. physics. I derive the aaaaa c mass
equation'.
using only the physics of Coulomb and Newton. The only ..now.
Idea
involved is the recognition of en establa•hee hitt of
nature.
This is entirely original with me.
da 011 TINE DILATION ...plains the apparent inc 00000 of the
halt-life of unstable partic lee movio1 at nor light speed using
only classical physics. The only "neer idea involve* as the
✓ecognition of an estael lolled fact of nature. This is
entirely
with me
31 g oft is oostly historical and aducataonal. I'm sure most
of
Your reader s are not aware that E .C. was di•coyerea before
Einstein, and does not require Spatial Relativity. I'm •Iso
sure
that oast have never seen Einstein in. derivation. Than
paper
contains one of the pre-Einotein derivations of that equation.
and EinStein's 1905 relativistic derivation . The only Nannon
content other than try CoolleCtire aaaaa tree in par 3, an which I
point out the most glaring fit. (there are mon. othersI an Einsteln
. s
der1 aaa aa .
I suspect that if Einstein S derivation alone were published
under
my name rather than Einstein your readers would call it
crackpot sc lens • .... and they eOu Id be right.
41 THE DERIVATIONS OF THE EINSTEIN-LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION offers
00000 food Proof that both of Einstein's
d ▪ oo oo lions are incorrect rh.. paper •••• presented on 24
May 95 at the regional meeting of the ANIS nolo at 0.6 'oho.e
state
uo.voroity. It iS Ileventeen Pages long because I quote Einstein
at length.. that my readers wall kno• whet he actually said las
opposed to the SE Oaten fOund in textbooks I. It also includes
Proof that the generic t 0000f ormation equations can not
produce
the ELT without ...rtmC.X/T. It is written as three
independent
tertian., ehiCh could be published empar•telY.
best regard*,
EMCO.T /IT Rented 1.4 June 95
E mEl
ROBERT J. HANNON 4473 Staghorn Lane 14 June 95
Einstein ts almost un I 00000 Ily creoited math the diecovery
1published In 1905, of the wor id-faeous relationship E . aEl,
which was the premise for the development of the atomic Ogee and
nuclear power plants. Others derived E 0 mC. years before Einstein,
using the classical physics of Newton one Haswell.
Mueerous esper amines indicate that, an nuclear reactions
involving a loss of mass, Efoesappear to equal mCi. This is genera
lly accepted all proof of Einstein s Theory of Special Relativity.
...ever, is the physical reason for this actually that PeStulated
by Einstein'
While Einstein.1905 d rrrrr flog' is based on his Theory Of
Special Relativity, an 1946 he published has non-relativietac
'Elementary Derivation of the Equivalence of Mass and Energy".
which is based on the "law of aberration of light'.
The pre-Einstein derivations. are predicated On Uh . ides that
electromagnetic radiation tEMA/ such am light has ...Can tu." •ne ▪
wee. ts "Pr n Roswell c•lculated the rrrrr IF I ....fled bY EMS of
rrrrr y 1E/ to bra
F 'Si
. here C a the velocity of Propagation of E empty Slige•. of/at
AS the rate of change of rrrrrr with time.
In Newtonian mechanics, FOSS COI
uluir• m eine and • • •CC•leaditiOn. And, ea • actin (C1
pheco. p • acteenty• • eV, idler. V • Velocity.
1/ One pre-Einstein derivation is as follows.
F • dertit ll/ClIdEidt) (1-11.
Therefore,44E/dtlitelp/Oti • . atiop
Then. assuming C inconstant.
tip • C, or p • E/C 11.41
HOISTS Number 107 My 1995 page 12
-
NO
ESIS Num
ber 107 J
uly 1996 page 4
ri r a l i Him
n Kidgl
11 Eli
0 I
n ni .7," ii g 2 9. & g. Er P. ti pr 7 1 5 IL 4 E 11 " a t
"7 5 a 3 1 E a I f il H-. wwa k g g p• 8 1 21 IN- 80 tgs L W g. g i
M - a- 5 2, e4 al 't a •Z
Fr 1 a a w .f
0 is 2,6 IR.
U /It .7,7.:Im
ail
xi i
ti a'- 1 ii er -ed a ; i to a ia.ti , E. it
I A i §, A tg ..' ri ig
I aEli F. .10 a F
si 9 a -1
`0,; g- T , [ ; ; la -go a a
1 c .a. . a 0. if Ti i in Q48
I ii- i t 8 O i r a° 05- g Es. gt
Substituting 4(-3) into 41-510
dm • dp/C • dc/CS or dE m deCi Cl -10
and integrating Math sides, E • met ((-7
Derived 4n thas way, E • mCt as valid /or any sass regardless of
Ate velocity Or other dynamics.
This derivation is premised on that wore. at the time unproven
theorstacal aspen el C is • remnant, lb/ EMS has momenta InhiCh aS
• mechohical concept) which can be equated with mC. IC I mate is •
aaa A aaaa . Stu aa aa (1-11 can not state that EMI. nes momentum
without the more subtle but vital presumption that the seemingly
independent •Mechanicel . and 'toilette...mg domains contain
phenomena that are equivalent and interchangeable That mos reaso
aaaaa idea an the late 19th century. but Only in theory.
21 Einstein's 1905 aaaaa ivietie deri,rotien l'Oees the Inertia
of • Boer depend tipon it. EnergY-Centent7. Annals. der Phisit, 17,
190S1 As based on the specific physical situation fundamental to
Special Relatavity, tiro duCtidint, Cartesian Systeme of Coo aaaaa
to iSCs1 an tranalateey, notion at velocity V. SC -K has coordinate
•roe ..y.A and time t SC-4(0 hat coordinate •mits X.Y.I and time T.
The coordinate •ros of the two SCs are parallel and the des with
the I's'is. Velocity Vi. such that the origin S.0 is aortae in the
direction of Inc aaaa a aa relative to the origin .n0.
Eanstean tarsi tells as that On the principles of his entrants i
aaaa tagation ('On the Electrodynamace of Moran.; Spates% der
Physak. 17, (905) no has 'deduced, among other things, the
following result,'
Se • E(11-1,4,C1cogolf.01-Vf/Cf1) 40-1)
where. E the aaaaa y of • system of plane waves ot light
measured an SC-K.
Es . the energy of the Salle eystem of plane aaaaa of light
measured an SC-Kt.
• the angle "the I. of the waves of light makes loath the .-en .
lot SC-10.
V the velocity of lee relative to 44.0 in the direction of inc
aaaa in.
C • the velocity of light.
Then Einstein proCelidei 'Let there be • stationary body in the
eyelet, CSC -4), and let its aaaaa y -referred to the einem CSC
-it) be Co. Let the energy Of the beefy aaaaa lye to the syethe
CSC-KA1 movang apove with the velocity Y. be ilet. Let this beer
send out, an • direction mating en dangle • with the anis al is,
plane males of light. of ...... *Er measured relatively to -K1. and
Sieultaneausly an genet tinentity of light in the Opposite
direction. Meanwhile the body remetne at rest math respect to
the
a
system (SC -K). The principle o/ energy oust manly to this
process. and in fact (by the principle of relatawIty, pith respect
to both sistas of coordinates. If.. call the energy of the beer
after the een .. .. of light C411 or mu) respectavelv, ronaured rel
aa aaI y to ESC-4(1 or CSC-Kt] respectively. then by omplOyeeet of
(equation la-Ill we obtain,
la-al
Ho mil“.4ercri-eviCicosol/Tcl-vtiCtO .0,-
([1.4viCicosoliSci-vi/C311
Ho •HticEr/111-V, /C, 4-S1
Sy subtreation p. obtain Dom these equations
nio-Eol-11441(-61141 • Sr00/01-VirC8)]-1) 4-41
The two at the lore M-E oc aaaa any An (10-441 have sample
physical sign if iC• a ... H en, •r• ehergy values of the tome body
referred to too systmes ot coo .. i aa tem snarl's ore au motion
relatively to each other, the body being at rest in one of the two
systems (SC -K). Thu. it as clear that the difference 14-11 can the
kinetic energy K of the body, with respect to the other finite,.
(SC-KS), only by an aaa a aa constant (0). which depends on the
choice Of the arbitrary ads. aaaaa constants of the argon H an4 E.
Thus me may places
Ho-go 5 No • 0 41 -51
P441 1 -Ell 1 e 401) • 0 11 6)
aaaaa 0 does not change during the ea aaaaaa at light. So ne
Niro
t o -KO ErC(1//(1 -V./C. )1 -I)
The kinetic energy of the body with respect to CSC-del cis aaaaa
as • result of the of light, and the amount of the damirmtion is
independent of the prop. Of the body
Neglecting magnitudes of the fourth and higher orders, toe may
piece
✓e -1011 5irilit/C0 • Ca -el
Through this point. le. the mass of the 'body', is not mentioned
in a/habeas . * analysis. m Ones not appear in IE -7/ or 12-41.
Thee iinetein aaaaa
.11 • bet gives off !miserly Cr in the term of radiation, it.
ease diminishes by Er/Cl. The fact that the energy withdrawn from
the body "roess energy of radiation evidently maims no difference,
so that me are led to the more gasohol conclusion that
The maaa of • body as • erasure of ate energy -contenti at the
energy changes by Er, the moos changes in the •a• ease by
NO88111 Number 107 July 1995 pegs 13
-
:81tizI IliiI1J aa.tlasa A112111 F.= ;488i
-104P f8:!]-1 effiglio oi _;83_
i! WN1 m2Pi• sont_
/
lo 8.404„).12 si]lga 0• 3,6 25.22
4Atgloi 816.20c zxot-lia O,8 s t", t.52 9 8. 8..1 itmt122 -.ewta
3= c 220 =4.0 1114630 4.1
NO
13
81
8 N
umbe
r 10
7 Ju
ly 19
98
page
3
where does equation i2Si come from, Einstein elsewhere had
ase...., ....tic ...rt..* of • material punt of mats m la no
longer gi.en he the nett
Ek • miM/E. IC -91
bathe
• mCli/41-Vitell 2-I01
If we develop the Oro of • series. ne obtain
Ek
when Vi/C. is small Compared with unity. the Ours of these
tetras always smell in cooper...on wIth the second, which lest
alone is
considered in classical mechanics. The first term Kt does not
contain the vg104 ty . and requires no consideration if we are
dealing only with ...atlas* as to no. the energy of a point-m.0S
depends on velocity.' In the same artiCla. Eansteln later enplaing,
tetra set...is nothing !else than the pnergY Possessed by the
body....
while this may explain 'Neglecting magnitudes of the fourth and
higher ", it does not yield I2 -SI. The aeries of R -Ill is derived
from E. • eCt/III-Vate.1, and, from R-Kl, to Kr/Ill -.1/C.1 sot
Si. • Oto .C.ISIL-V ,IC.0 Er/Ica-of/C*1,
• • Er te.
So • metiIII-Vi/C11
and since to • EY before glutting the light rays.
Ek met/ill-VA/C.1
31 The most astounding aspect of Einstein'. derivmtton ts that,
assusing at is physically and a Igearalcal ly 'cite.it does *et
apply to 'bodies that are net in notion. a entire analysis is
predicated on assumed di rrrrrrrrr in the 'energy" of • 'body' and
of light rays when measured relative to tie SCs that are in •
•pectfic kind of r• lath.* stetson. If the SC contain Sag Ow "body'
is not in motion at V relative to the Other SC, ithst is, Vs0) his
equation.
Ea • CM -IV/Clcosel/ft -VI » tan)) .
become. El • K ,a-1,4
and his entire analysis Collapses. as .0110001
En • KII.M.Er ia-aa1 Me • MCI '-'Er Ca -let
He-ge • Mill-Sill lit.)
He-go - 0.01.1.411,1 00
Since, according to Einstein.
Ho-En • KO • C -Sal and, HIII-Efil a XIII • c la-as)
Then, Ote -KM • 0 la-,a'
and, according to Einstein.
the kite energY in the
Substituting this into elitiE cE -SO. Ito-Slat • Er(Ilitti
-Vi/Ctil -I/ CM-71
Where does ii -101 come fres? Einittain Odeon t explain. Here is
en If the kinetic ...orgy of • mass a ts mot/E. than, Set
[rift/KIS-tit/CM-I) • 0 a ilt since light suet •letays travel at C.
the kinetic energy of light must be AO. sot And. Els . 0, Set
glIrIVfiCil
aVS/8 . eC: end, .hen V.0, his equation. Elt .
•Ct/III-VtiC2I
Set Er m eel free imhich he Obtained E . OCt. is without any
physical at • lenatr•ic foundatiee.
NOFSIB Number 107 July 1996 page 14
ah. factor 1/0 in aVtle is due to the fact that g sass suet
accelerate free V.0 to V.V. SO its enrage energy is lit of its peak
OfMrgy sta..
A Change in kinetic meetly due to nisei/in of light is,
Ito -XIII • eCICCl/Ill -../Cf/1 -I) I2-7.1
SO bete,e asitting the rays Of light.
-
411410:141 1111
1 111: ;1
11
2 il
9.1
1.y
11111N"
1
1 4
ci;
:1111111 .1
1 1
111
11:10111:1,9141
4. III
41; Iii!ill
11114i 1 la.111-11' 11,11 ii It intu
11111111:1
1il. "2
1.2
1111
11
11111011111 TI 1
114011 112
11 7
11
1 11
11 1
1
141 . 0
42.1
72
1 t'lbh
pi
!IiiiillitiII=i1
NEW SUPERN UTRIENT
FIGHTS AGING AND DISEASE!
Com
ments o
n N
oesis 10
2 th
ru 1
04
By R
obert D
ick 13 S
peer Street
Som
erville
, NJ 0
887
6
rdick@
have
n. S
corn
I was glad to see R
obert Hannon elaborate on his "w
ave analyzer" hypothesis so as to make it even
ea
sier th
an
be
fore
to sh
oo
t it do
wn
. He
write
s (Noesis 102 p 12) "T
he validity of the Fourier S
eries has b
een ve
rified b
y countle
ss measu
rem
ents." N
ot so
. The F
ourie
r serie
s is math
em
atics, n
ot
physics. No am
ount of measurem
ent can verify or refute it.
If, he claims, w
e could spectrum-analyze a pulse co
mple
tely and b
efo
re it e
nds, th
en th
e fu
ture
w
ou
ld b
e d
ete
rmin
ate
. Th
is is just w
ha
t we
can
no
t do
. Mr. H
an
no
n's a
rgu
me
nt is sim
ilar to
sayin
g
tha
t Eu
clide
an
ge
om
etry "h
as b
ee
n ve
rified
by co
un
tless m
ea
sure
me
nts." T
he
refo
re, p
ara
llel lin
es
never meet, therefore the E
arth is flat! (This is only an hypothesis.)
At this point I w
ill forsake my "psychotic obsession" (p 15) w
ith Mr. H
annon and move on to less
trivial topics. Kevin Langdon has provided us w
ith a number of statem
ents which are nontrivial and to
which I w
ould like to respond. First, (N
oesis 103, p8) on abortion:
I think abortion is wrong, an interference w
ith something sacred, but I do not believe it
sho
uld
be
illeg
al P
roh
ibitio
n o
f som
eth
ing
this p
op
ula
r is un
wo
rkab
le. It w
ou
ld
en
da
ng
er th
e live
s of th
ose
wh
o fe
el co
mp
elle
d to
see
k ou
t un
de
rgro
un
d (a
nd
therefore unregulated) m
edical facilities.
I think abortion is homicide T
here is no good reason why hom
icide should be safe and comfortable
for th
e kille
r.
Ke
vin q
uo
tes S
cien
tific Am
erica
n on the supposed decline of the ozone layer. T
his claim is pure
specu
latio
n. T
here
is no kn
ow
n n
atu
ral h
istory o
f the
ozo
ne la
yer. It w
as n
eve
r measu
red
system
atica
lly until a
few
deca
de a
go. W
hat, fo
r exa
mple
is the e
ffect o
f the su
nsp
ot cycle
on th
e
ozone layer? We don't know
.
At th
e risk o
f soundin
g p
ara
noid
, let m
e sta
te th
at! d
o n
ot tru
st Scie
ntific A
me
rican
. It has never ever run a piece favorable to the defense of
A
merica and the W
est since the cold war began. S
ome say
it is because the publisher's wife is a C
omm
unist. Anyw
ay, it publishes ideology disguised as science.
Kevin continues: "T
he world's rainforests, m
arshes.. continue to be destroyed..." Yes, sw
amps and
jungles are being tamed. P
laces such as these, and deserts, and mountains, are all hostile
to hum
an life O
nly wealthy people have the luxury of enjoying pestholes and
w
ildernesses. MI said, capitalism
and the production of m
ore wealth are the only hopes orsaving" such places.
Kevin enters fantasyland in his claim
that "Most scientists studying the earth and its w
aters and atm
osp
here
now
belie
ve th
at g
lobal w
arm
ing is a
real p
henom
enon..." I kn
ow
of o
ne stu
dy th
at
NO
E8
18
Nu
mb
er 1
07
Ju
ly 1
99
8 p
ag
e 2
