Sean,
Good points. I'm so gald that we now have a few people able to objectively
look at Cater.
Dean,
I have recently bought and read The Awesome Life Force mainly due to my
interest in "anti-gravity" and Orgonian physics. Cater's soft particle
theory is interesting but is there one empirical test that can confirm any
of his claims? If his theories are actually correct then experiments to
prove them should not be so difficult. I'm suspect of anyone who can't
back up what they claim with some hard evidence.
Again, good point. But Cater did call upon the previous work of people such
as Willaim Reich, Baron Van Reichenbach and even that guy Land who invented
the camera in order to substantiate the existence of orgone, i.e. soft, low
frequency particles.
Speaking of the devil, I think that we need to go beyond Cater in this
regard. Don't get me wrong- Cater is original and unique because he applied
the existence of soft particles to physics correctly insofar as he
understood that soft, invisible particles are causing the electrostatic
gravity charge. Gravity as a charge, an electrostatic force, had been missed
by science in general because the nature and distribution of low frequency
particles were not understood.
Also, by dint of his understanding that sunlight undergoes a frequency
redistribution when it hits the Earth and that, " as such " and only as
such, can penetrate the whole shell of the Earth. This understanding allows
us to explain the existence and nature of an inner sun. There is plenty
more, but basically, he was the first guy to apply soft particles to a
geological model, and an HE geological model at that. He is practically an
unsung Galileo.
Only an eccentric would even look at things from such an angle, but the
problem is that he might be eccentric in other ways, what to speak of the
confusion that he sometimes exhibts on the phone due to his age. So I think
that we have to look at other people's work, too, in order to acquire
substantiation for the existence of soft particles. Once they are
substantiated, their application to the HE geo model isn't that hard.
And there are other people, by that I mean current investigators, who
research orgone. Of course, they only do so in relation to biological
applications and health care, but they can substantiate orgone. I'll give
you an example from an interview done with Michael Mannion, who wrote a book
on William Reich recently called Project Mindshift: " He created a device he
called the Orgone Energy Accumulator. He felt that like right now in the
room that you and I are speaking we're in an energy field and that by a
certain arrangement of materials, alternating layers of organic and metallic
materials -- you could create an artificially higher level of energy within
the enclosure than in the rest of the room. And you could measure this with
an electroscope, you could measure temperature differences with a
thermometer. I have now pictures taken with an infra red thermo-imaging
camera in 1996 in a state of the art physics lab that demonstrates the
existence of this energy." So you see, here is somebody new who has taken
things a step further. There is a whole group of orgone sites listed at:
www.orgone.org
And there is an orgonomy mailing list at:
http://www.orgone.org/orgonoml02.htm
One guy who is an active researcher is Dr. James De Meo. I have an article
of his about the existence of ether vis-a-vis the Michelson-Morely
experiment, on my site underneath the Ether article at the " ether " button.
It is called " Critical Review of the Shankland Analysis." Now get this- he
does not seem to be a fan of Cater's. He wrote me once saying that Cater's
idea of an orgone accumulator powering an automobile was a bit far-fetched,
or something to that effect. So there are other guys out there who seem to
be good, but they don't necessarily agree with Cater's inventions and
experiments. In other words, Cater could be wrong about some things. And if
we don't look around to develop our understanding about ether and soft
particles, we run the risk of becoming inbred.
I have been tempted to
perform the "mirror" arrangement that supposedly produces a soft particle
beam but as one list member reported, his experiment didn't yield anything
tangible. Explaining it away as not an accurate test because the mirrors
were not concave is a stretch.
Are you sure about this? Was that Jeff that was doing that experiment? If
so, Jeff- Did you continue to follow up?
I would like to believe this stuff as much
as any of you but simply believing isn't going to get us anywhere. I am
sure people discussed the properties of combustion years ago and
speculated
about harnessing it and formulated theories about producing an engine.
Since the concept was sound and based in reality working models of
internal
combustion engines were produced and that was that. If this soft particle
business is for real than the same thing should occur.
Again, more recently a whole new generation of work has been carried out. In
relation to the substantiation of soft particles, let's make contact with
some of the more modern groups. I am on the Orgonomy list, but I only glance
at stuff. I am a bit overwhelmed at the moment, and can only do so much.
Anything that anyone else finds out about orgone, evidence and the like, can
always be brought back to this list.
There are enough
great minds out there to figure out how to get some tangible results if
what
Cater says is correct, but since Cater is the theorsist here then why
doesn't he devise an experiment to prove his concepts? Furthermore, if
this
soft particle business is a natural process and going on around us all the
time wouldn't anomolous gravitational effects be the norm instead of the
exception simply due to pure chance? If gravitational effects are due to
a
frequency somewhere between the infrared and radar band why haven't
anomolous events occurred at radar bases
I think that these things have occurred. They say that the dcash at Roswell
was due to the fact that the saucer came into contact with radar all of the
sudden, that it had just been turned on, or something like that. Radar was
new at that time and maybe not anticipated by the occupants. Such a
radiation could have disturbed the saucer's antigravity system.
( related to the equipment ) and why
hasn't someone reported a TV remote ( infrared beam ) controller jumping
out
of their hands?
The radiation in this case wouldn't be strong enough and it is directed
outwards.
As much random as most of the things in the natural world
are it seems to me the exact frequency of gravitational effects would have
somehow been generated here and there accidentally by our modern
technology.
Cater did give several examples. I am surprised that you missed them. On
page 306 he mentioned a certain experiment which Baron Von Reichenbach
carried out which exhibited antigravitic side effects. He also mentioned the
way in which a lady's hair dryer will infuse her hair with electrons cause
floating, i.e., repulsion. He pointed out clouds as an example. Clouds are
an everyday thing, they are largest objects which we see in the sky, no
less. And they are close. He explained the nature of super fine spray and
why it wafts upward in a way which can't be accounted for by breezes and
such. This is also an everyday thing. When I went to Iguassu Falls in Brazil
a little while ago, I witnessed this phenomena in a very obvious way. It was
obvious from the aircraft that a great cloud of mist was working its way
very high up, which almost seemed to be suspended in air, in a way which
wasn't related to the direct impact of the falling water. This cloud of
super-fine mist reached a height of several thousand feet and just hung
there. On the ground, it was visible from miles away. At the falls, the mist
hung there in mid air, too, and exhibited horizontal movement due to some
breeze. It its suspension in mid air were due to the trajectory caused by
the force of impact, then it would have followed through and fallen at some
point and certainly would not have floated away horizontally, what to speak
of slowly ascending to such heights.
I don't ask anything more than I'd be willing to be asked of me and that
is
that if you proclaim something, back it up with proof.
So you can see that there is proof, in relation to everyday things, right in
front of our eyes.
I think that one problem that we have in accepting all this is
psychological. These understandings shake our very belief systems and offend
our egos violently. In the beginning, I accepted these concepts on the
conceptual platform and just ran away with them. I noticed a weird causeless
unwillingness though, on an emotional level. There were moments when I
simply rebelled. A few times my intellect wasn't able to pull in the reins
until a few days later because, after all, the arguments were there, staring
me in the face.
So think about it from that platform. If you have read the whole book, then
you could have answered your own questions exactly as I have. Some of the
answers were obvious and straight from the book, yet you didn't consider
them- why? The other orgone sites have been mentioned several times and thee
are links below the ether article on my site. Still, you didn't seem to
delve into them to see what you would be confronted with.
Is your mind doing with your intellect like the rabbit does with the hunter-
it closes its eyes and says " he is not there." Your mind has to allow your
intellect to contemplate objectively. I really think that there is an
emotional aspect to scientific methodology which isn't taken into
consideration, and that nobody is immune from it.
Anyway, as I said before, I am glad to get some feedback about Cater. Until
Jeff started chirping up with his impressions, it had been a one-sided
presentation. You are more than welcome to take the role of the loyal
opposition and Devil's advocate if you like. It could only be beneficial.
Late,
Dharma/Dean