Coping: A Bothersome Philadelphia Experiment Data Point

I’m spending too much time in my lab lately. Yeah, still working on gravity/anti-gravity theories and the like.

But now I’m vexed by a bothersome data point that popped out of my work just yesterday.

This takes a little explaining…because it is not the simplest stuff in the world. So here goes…

I was reviewing Oliver Heaviside’s Volume I on electromagnetic theory and at the very end of the work he allows as how light and gravity may propagate in similar ways.

Not that this is new to fans of gravitoelectromagenetism. A quick Wiki check so you can keep up:

“Gravitoelectromagnetism, abbreviated GEM, refers to a set of formal analogies between the equations for electromagnetism and relativistic gravitation; specifically: between Maxwell’s field equations and an approximation, valid under certain conditions, to the Einstein field equations for general relativity. Gravitomagnetism is a widely used term referring specifically to the kinetic effects of gravity, in analogy to the magnetic effects of moving electric charge. The most common version of GEM is valid only far from isolated sources, and for slowly moving test particles.”

Fine, so far it’s fairly straight-forward.  Even for George the knuckle-dragger.

Now we rerun the rumor usually cited as fiction about the so-called Philadelphia Experiment which also has a Wiki entry:

“The Philadelphia Experiment is an alleged military experiment that is said to have been carried out by the U.S. Navy at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania some time around October 28, 1943. The U.S. Navy destroyer escort USS Eldridge (DE-173) was claimed to have been rendered invisible (or “cloaked”) to enemy devices….”

And from here the story takes off in a whole bunch of directions, including but not limited to the Charles Berlitz book, a couple of movies, and some damn interesting sci-fi lore.

At least that’s what we’re conditioned to believe.

Readers of the column know that (like a good reporter or mad scientist – which runs in the family) Ures truly is quite suspect about the Philadelphia Experiment perhaps having tapped into something non-ordinary to put it in simple terms.

For two reasons (after rereading Heaviside):

One is that gravity seems in my read to have been a kind of secondary not well explored aspect of electrics and magnetism which were the two forces he was marrying. And quite successfully by bringing on vector algebra and losing the quaternion approach.

Second is there are some hints that something might be happening with regard to high voltages, ultraviolet light, and magnetics.  A while back I mentioned the “gravity shield” theory of Dr. Fran Aquino.

When I read the book The Fog: A Never Before Published Theory of the Bermuda Triangle Phenomenon– which is an account of a purported naturally-arising dimensional warp…well, I started to jot down things that seemed to cluster.

I find making notes – and then grouping the data different ways – can help me get different “slice” on a problem.

This was no exception.

After working on the basics – the lack of one, two, or three combined frequency sweeps at repeatable power levels from Direct Current all the way up to microwave frequencies, it occurred to me that this might be fun. That’s the experiment now in construction.

Close on the heels of that will come the experiments involving gas plasma frequency mixing. We can save that for another morning.

Here’s the really cool thought, however, that popped into my head Wednesday as a question:

Have researchers into this time-travel/temporal displacement and possible dimensional warping completely missed a data set that might point to something going on?”

Yes!

I went looking for geological/earthquake records for the relevant 100 year period because it occurred to me, after the earthquake experience here at the ranch last week, that – this is so cool – any REAL time/dimension work would likely set off an unusual number of quakes.

Here’s the data set I found online:  7.0 and greater data by year from 1900 to 2000:

190013
190114
19028
190310
190416
190526
190632
190727
190818
190932
191036
191124
191222
191323
191422
191518
191625
191721
191821
191914
19208
192111
192214
192323
192418
192517
192619
192720
192822
192919
193013
193126
193213
193314
193422
193524
193621
193722
193826
193921
194023
194124
194227
194341
194431
194527
194635
194726
194828
194936
195029
195121
195217
195322
195417
195519
195615
195734
195810
195915
196022
196118
196215
196320
196415
196522
196619
196716
196830
196927
197029
197123
197220
197316
197421
197521
197625
197716
197818
197915
198018
198114
198210
198315
19848
198515
19866
198711
19888
19897
199013
199110
199223
199316
199415
199525
199622
199720
199816
199911

Left column: years obviously.

Right column: Number of 7.0 and larger quakes.

To turn this into a histogram:

BinFreq.
5-106
10-1516
15-2027
20-2528
25-3014
30-355
35-403
40-451

Now the long-awaited punch line:

What year was the extreme outlier with 41 earthquakes of 7.0 and above?

Answer: The same year as the purported Philadelphia Experiment.  1943.

Coincidence?

I don’t know.

But just for the halibut, let’s zoom in on estimate 6.0 or greater quakes to see how the year pencils out as a distribution:

Month 1943Frequency
14
24
39
48
56
610
75
83
99
103
1110
128
79

Now for the sci-fi of this – backed up with the data:

IF the Philadelphia Experiment were real – and not saying it is – then the sequence of development would likely have been something likek this:

  • March 1943 first proof of concept run. 9 quakes in the month.
  • April ‘43 more testing of concept and 8 quakes occur.
  • May quakes drop into the background mode as rework and changes to equipment are made.
  • June ’43 a big full power test. 10 quakes.
  • Back to the drawing board for a couple of months.
  • September brings another test, and 9 quakes.
  • A down month in October for more system tuning.
  • And then 10 quakes again when the test (the one the historical rumor mill latched onto) happened in November and 10 more quakes resulted.

If I were writing fiction (which I’ve sworn off for a while) I would link up the quakes in geographical software.

Then, seeing as the majority of the quakes were Pacific Rim, and just north of Japan (except the 7.0 off Honshu), I would weave the story that the “experiment” wasn’t just with attempts at radar invisibility, but also with attempts to make an earthquake-machine with which to attack the Japanese homeland.

Author Vadim Telitsin links Nicholas Tesla to the Experiment in his book on topic.

I don’t know about you, but the fact of earthquakes hitting a 100 year high in the same year as the rumored invisibility project is one hell of a coincidence.

Just sort of tweaked my interest in the story again because that’s hardcore data.

The rest?  Rewrite of rewrite.  But all in good fun…except there is the new data point to think about…

Write when you get rich,

George@ure.net

 

Comments

Coping: A Bothersome Philadelphia Experiment Data Point — 26 Comments

  1. “…ether was falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiments…”

    This is not true. Look at the original Michelson-Morley experiment report in the back of the report. I’ve seen it myself at the local University library. They did not find zero. They found a difference but not the expected value. I think it was around 8K/s. Subsequent test with more accurate equipment found differences also that would change with the position of the planets.

    I got the info on the Michelson-Morley experiment from G. Harry Stine from this article, if I remember correctly, “Faster than Light” 1980. (In Destinies: February-March 1980 ). I still have it…somewhere…buried in a mass of books.

    https://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/books/pages/s/GHarryStine.htm

  2. George, may I recommend the book on electrogravitics by Dr Paul A LaViolette..particularly the section on Tesla’s ‘repulsive tractor beam’ …..get the electric and magnetic and Poynting vectors going in the same direction…

  3. “Maxwell’s” vector equations taught in university are actually Heaviside’s truncated equations, and are only a simplified version of what Maxwell originally wrote.

    The Maxwell-Heaviside theory of electrodynamics is now well over a century old, and is actually a serious truncation of Maxwell’s 1865 theory of 20 equations in 20 unknowns (those are specifically listed in the original published paper in 1865). Because it was “tainted” with a higher group symmetry algebra (quaternions), even Maxwell himself came under intense pressure to simplify it, after the publication of the first edition of his famous Treatise in 1873. Consequently, Maxwell was rewriting and greatly “watering down” his own Treatise, having finished rewriting and greatly reducing some 80% of it at the time of his death in 1879. The second edition and third edition, therefore, are NOT the original Maxwellian theory, but a very serious truncation.

    The further great “simplification” occurred by several scientists after Maxwell’s death, in the 1880s, and notably by Heaviside, Hertz, and Gibbs. The equations taught today at university as “Maxwell’s theory” are pale shadows, and those equations themselves are actually the equations and notations of Heaviside, further “symmetrically regauged” by Lorentz (which very neatly threw out all COP>1.0 EM systems taking their excess energy from the vacuum in the form of free asymmetrical regauging). At the time these altered Maxwell equations were adopted in general, it occurred in a short “debate” (mostly in the journal Nature) where the vectorists simply discarded the quaternists’ work, etc. It was not done by “sweet science”, but by sheer dogma and individual preference for “simplicity”.

    So our present classical theory still implicitly retains the material ether more than 100 years after that ether was falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiments. Not an equation was changed after those experiments! The “Maxwellians” as they are referred to, all originally assumed the material ether, which meant that they assumed there was not a single point in the entire universe that was devoid of mass. Consequently, the EM fields were—to them—obviously very material fields indeed; they ALWAYS occurred in mass (e.g., in the material ether). They were therefore erroneously assumed to be force fields. Mass is actually a component of force (though that is still ignored in classical mechanics as well); there is no separate mass-free force acting upon a separate mass, because the phrase “mass-free force” itself is an oxymoron). Many foundations physicists have discussed this “material origin of force”, so it is well-known by leading scientists (though seldom known to engineers).

    and so forth from The Tom Bearden Website (Cheniere.org)

  4. Time travel discussions often ignore the associated space travel problems. The earth whizzes around the sun which whizzes around a galactic center which whizzes around other things which etc. Go back in time 1 second and you’re a zillion miles in deep space – unless you’ve somehow determined earth’s relative speeds and ABSOLUTE position so you can somehow zap yourself there too.

    It’s a convention of science fiction that nobody has to worry about that, just like nobody worries about almost all fictional spaceships having perfect artificial gravity

  5. Light is a particle, gravity is a (?? Force??) Gravity affects light, light doesn’t seem to affect gravity. So how can light and gravity be propagated in similar ways? Maybe, gravity is actually a particle and “dark matter” is actually gravity particles.

    Just amusing myself George. Thinking out loud as it were. I don’t know anything…

  6. One problem with the data collected: was the exact same equipment placed in the exact same locations used to collect EQ data every year in the last century? Or did the equipment improve and were the detection devices spread out to, say, include buoys out to see and satellites in space in those years? And did the science of determining the strength of EQs get updated, too? And finally, it seems sometimes EQ strength is downgraded (or occasionally upgraded?) due to political pressure (see, for example, “It’s safe to swim,” said the mayor when Jaws was swimming off shore; or “It’s safe to turn on nuke plants now,” says Japanese PM Abe). In WWII it would seem to me that detection devices that looked for submarines could be used to detect EQs, too. Gotta factor all that in…

  7. Hello, George. As I remember, according to the book, the ‘effect’ was achieved by passing current running at light frequencies (as in wavelengths/frequencies of actual LIGHT) through large electromagnets – supposedly ‘degaussing coils’ running the length of the all-metal ship. (Sorry, finding someone to teach me the math is damn near impossible! I NEED to learn calculus!) Heterodyning high microwave freqs may get you to that frequency level. Opposing the electric or magnetic fields (but not both) could create other or additional effects. If time starts seeming ‘syrupy’ or otherwise variable, consider that time and space are two components of the universe in which we live, and when space is distorted, time will be likewise. BTW, please don’t let Zeus the Cat near the ‘experiment’ area – that’s all we need – a time-traveling cat with advanced knowledge of the stock markets/rodent trends!

  8. You might explore the work of Professor David Pares of the University of Nebraska who claims to have built experimental warp drives based on warp bubbles generated in thunder storm. This concept comes from pilot who experience the effect of moving large distances in shorter than expected times when in these storms when in the Bermuda triangle. He has been interviewed on “Coast to coast am”.

    And now for something entirely different:

    Egyptologist tell us that the Great Pyramid is the tomb of pharaoh Kufu. The tomb of Seti the First is covered in artwork that is to be used by the deceased as a guide to the afterlife. The Great Pyramid has no artwork of any kind but lots of bare walls to put artwork on! So is it a tomb for a great pharaoh? Inquiring minds want to know!!

    • No, it is an installation and an initiation chamber as well as it was used to create rain 10,000 years ago. Read ‘Initiation’, by Elisabeth Haich – it is the BEST book written on what went on in the Great Pyramid.

  9. Light can be converted into electricity, and visa versa.
    Electricity can be converted into magnetism and visa versa.
    But how do we convert light into magnetism and visa versa?

  10. an interesting concept.. I have always considered the harmonics theory as one of the best that coincides with quantum mechanics..
    and the thought of magnetic vortex’s comes to mind which in simplistic terms was what the Philadelphia experiment was.. a magnetic shield..
    what about the earth.. and its vortexes.. now think about this.. where the vortexes lie and where are the locations of most of the worlds pyramids..how about solar cycles as well.. would the change in the solar magnetic storms also cause an effect.

  11. didnt nicoila tesla supposedly invent an ‘earthquack machine’??

    http://www.excludedmiddle.com/earthquake.htm

    “He put his little vibrator in his coat-pocket and went out to hunt a half-erected steel building. Down in the Wall Street district, he found one&endash;ten stories of steel framework without a brick or a stone laid around it. He clamped the vibrator to one of the beams, and fussed with the adjustment until he got it.

    Tesla said finally the structure began to creak and weave and the steel-workers came to the ground panic-stricken, believing that there had been an earthquake. Police were called out. Tesla put the vibrator in his pocket and went away. Ten minutes more and he could have laid the building in the street. And, with the same vibrator he could have dropped the Brooklyn Bridge into the East River in less than an hour.

    • It is called resonant frequency. When an opera singer can shatter a glass, by hitting the note which physically fits the size of the object.

  12. A cursory look at the annual data appears to show a cycle in the number of earthquakes over time. As the use of a 7 earthquake will not capture a 6.5 quake perhaps the application of some fuzzy logic to expand the data set (e.g. 7.0 or above has a “membership” of 100%, 6.9 is 95%, etc.) may better define a cyclical pattern ( or maybe not). Also, 1943 was the peak of a solar cycle. Anyway, I enjoy your out of the box thinking.

  13. George, for a good read on the “Philadelphia Experiment”, read Joseph P. Farrell’s Secrets of the Unified Field: The Philadelphia Experiment, The Nazi Bell, and the Discarded Theory.

  14. Best wishes with your experiments, and be careful.

    I knew Al Bielek, and heard him speak to small groups a few times.

    He did not seem to be milking the story for fame and fortune. He seemed a pretty stable guy, rather than an excitable story-teller. I’m not saying the whole Philadelphia Experiment story is true, just that he was completely convinced of his part in the whole weirdness. Just as with UFO abductions and other anomalous events, there may be other explanations than the ones the conscious mind tells itself.

  15. Great stuff George, keep it up, we are with you in spirit even if we cannot do these things ourselves.
    As for gravity – you sound like you are pointing in the direction of “gravity as a process” not “gravity as a property”, again an alternative theory that is out there.

  16. Interesting . . . might I suggest that you look at the ‘thirties’ in your list of occurances and see if a similar pattern exists in that there are particular ‘high and low’ months with gaps – perhaps the months of June and November are tied to the theory that ‘snow and ice’ build up are causing earthquakes? (Not that I believe it, but it is one theory . . . look for patterns in other years too!)