Keshe foundation? New revolutionary technology that could change the world? A hoax?

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Basically, a nuclear engineer by the name of M.T. Keshe, born in Iran an educated in London, who know resides in Belgium, claims that he has discovered the technology to remedy the world's energy and food shortages problems, as well as improve transportation, medicine and space travel.

I've read over a number of "scientific discoveries" and theories that claimed to revolutionize many areas of human life at once. They're never true, and that should immediately trigger severe skepticism.

I looked at the Keshe Foundation's website. It does not look like the type of website that you would see from a biotech or aerospace company; it's flashy, quotes a lot from Wikipedia in nearly all areas, and seems heavily slanted toward the average person. Fast judgments aside, I went through a few of their sections. For energy, they claim to have revolutionized solar technology and battery technology; for the environment, they claim to have developed a method of energy production from carbon dioxide and methane gas, as well as a few other things. Sounds great, but this one obscure group did all of those things at once, even though dozens of companies are dedicating efforts to them as well?

I'm not well-versed in those areas, though, so I went to the part of their page that I've done advanced studies in: healthcare. I went specifically to their cancer area. Here's what they write:

Eradication of cancer by the use of a pen-size reactor is achieved by resetting the magnetic field of the defective cell to match that of the cells in its vicinity, without any radiation or medication or intrusion into the tissue.

Does that sound good to a non-biologist? Because to me, it sounds like they have no idea how cancer works, despite copying and pasting from Wikipedia a few sections higher on their website. The problem with cancer is that mutations arise at the genetic level that disables the cell's ability to regulate its replication, and then it replicates uncontrollably. What does this have to do with the "magnetic field" and how does the magnetic field correspond to the mutations? Even if you want to make the argument that each DNA sequence produces its own unique magnetic field, how does that help you to correct mutations?

Nothing is impossible, but what's going on seems clear: they're throwing out a bunch of people's dreams (cure cancer, cure world hunger, limitless energy, world peace, etc.) and putting up just enough information to make it sound like they're credible to non-experts. To me, it sounds like they're writing stories. They're involved in far too many areas for what I presume is a new, small company, and if they truly are large enough to really be in those research areas, I imagine they would have no need to copy from Wikipedia so heavily across all of their pages.

That the Zeitgeist movement is trying to spread this around really hurts their credibility in my eyes. I guess they're conspiracy theorists? Interestingly, I recently came across a psychology study indicating that conspiracy theorists (and free-market believers) tend not to trust ("believe in") science. I suppose making that leap isn't a big deal: it's a nice fantasy to think that all of the solutions for turning the world into a perfect utopia are already here, but human greed is getting in the way. If you fall into that fantasy, it means that utopia can be achieved if we fight against something. Fighting against things is easy. The reality - that those creations to make the world a perfect place require fundings and hundreds of thousands of man-hours in the lab - is much more boring and difficult. If I weren't grounded to reality and chose to believe what ever I want, I'd go with the former belief.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

This sounds similar actually to another theory being proposed..subquantum kinetics and electrogravitics..I've yet to actually see solid science-based counter argument from the conventional physics side rather than just lambasting the theories as crap.

I would love to see a proper scientifc debate over this. google scholar search results are very one sided unfortunately

I would, but I'd have to give you a science lesson. And consider that it takes college students about 2 years to learn all this stuff, I don't feel like going to the effort. As I said, if you're interested in physics (and you should be), read about it yourself. The information is all out there, and it's a lot easier to figure out then you might think. It's just time consuming to explain. This is a good start. And don't skip the basic stuff. You have no hope of understanding magnetism if you don't understand forces. Of course if you have specific questions, I (and many others on this board) will be more then happy to try to help.

I don't want to seem like an elitist dick, lording it over with my knowledge, and I don't want to avoid debate either, but typing out pages and pages to teach basic physics seems too much like work, especially when there are very good educational resources online, which will do a much better job then I could possibly do.

And anyway, Science is not really based on "debate" anyway. It's based on experimental observation.

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

I would say that a more plausible way to achieve safe acceleration and deceleration would be to somehow nullify the law of inertia, perhaps through magnetism.

What? You can't "nullify inertia". It's physically impossible. Things will always tend to resist changes in their motion, that is inertia.

That said, it's not impossible to travel from Tehran to New York in 10 minutes. Need I remind others that you can travel into space (a similar distance), in about a 30 minutes by rocket. It wouldn't be a very pleasant journey though, you'd experience such extreme acceleration that your dinner would be plastered all over the seat in front of you due to motion sickness.

The primary obstacle to super fast travel is not power, but air resistance. There are 3 ways I could see getting around this and achieving fast travel:

1. Travelling through space, there is no air in space, and you can travel ludicrously fast. Getting into space is expensive though, but commercial space travel is making advances. However so long as we continue to use rockets, it's going to be gimped (due to the need to carry all your fuel into space).
2. Improved chassis designs to reduce air resistance. This is always advancing, but there's only so much you can do here. Also, you can't avoid breaking the sound barrier, and most people don't like the accompanying Sonic Boom, limiting supersonic travel to trans-oceanic crossings...
3. Vacuum Tunnel combined with a maglev. In a vacuum tunnel, there is no air, and on a maglev there's no contact with the ground, theoretically allowing unlimited acceleration. Of course building such a tunnel (and evacuating all the air from it) over any great distance is somewhat impractical.

10 minutes is a bit overambitious. I think you could get the travel time down to a 30 minutes-1 hour though.

[Nightbat®]

If it sounds too good to be true,....

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I would, but I'd have to give you a science lesson. And consider that it takes college students about 2 years to learn all this stuff, I don't feel like going to the effort. As I said, if you're interested in physics (and you should be), read about it yourself. The information is all out there, and it's a lot easier to figure out then you might think. It's just time consuming to explain. This is a good start. And don't skip the basic stuff. You have no hope of understanding magnetism if you don't understand forces. Of course if you have specific questions, I (and many others on this board) will be more then happy to try to help.

I don't want to seem like an elitist dick, lording it over with my knowledge, and I don't want to avoid debate either, but typing out pages and pages to teach basic physics seems too much like work, especially when there are very good educational resources online, which will do a much better job then I could possibly do.

And anyway, Science is not really based on "debate" anyway. It's based on experimental observation.

No you're not. I am a science student so I fully understand what you are trying to say

And trust me, as someone who does bioscience, this guy's foundation's claims on cancer as they are is BS (even if you somehow made every magnetic field produced in the body uniform, it still won't address the problems of faults in transcription that gives rise to cancer mutations...because the forces holding organic molecules together, electrostatic attraction, disulfide bonds etc depend on more than magnetic fields).....But I still am willing to listen. Because simply put he has not published any formal paper yet.

And yes....I do have a physics background before I went into the bio side so it's very obvious to me his videos don't explain much. Yet how do you know he's not hiding something or trying to simplify things without any formal paper? Magnetism arises from moving electric charges and moving electric charges have been allegedly demonstrated to produce an impulse on objects which was directly proportional to the target mass among other things (so it can't be radiation pressure) The people who carried out this experiment concluded the force was gravitational in nature.....obviously this would be major news if true yet no one seems interested in replicating it.

Maybe this Keshe guy found something similar to this experiment? Be it actually gravity/EM unity or not since an experiment with that result has been made, someone ought to replicate it no?

Well we'll find out soon enough anyway


I didn't mean debate as in arguing over nothing...I meant it as in paper vs counter paper research

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

...
What? You can't "nullify inertia". It's physically impossible. Things will always tend to resist changes in their motion, that is inertia.
...

Actually, if you really could influence gravity or the "effects" of mass for that matter, you could - hypotheitcally speaking - nullify inertia. Actually inertia as a result of acceleration could be nullified by controlled gravity, since gravity is a force that is able to accelerate masses.

Imagine a large gravitational force that acts exactly in the opposit direction of the force that is accelerating you resulting in a forward movement. Now imagine the gravitational force is traveling with you, so that you dont actually escape it nor does it nullify the acceleration that propels you forward. The only thing it nullifies then is inertia.

edit:

Or think about it this way. The reference object that actually accelerates by a force resulting of propulsion (e.g. a space ship), just has to use counteracting gravity in its inner frame to cancel any perceived acceleration within the system. Even though the whole system in reference is still accelerating, it just canceled out these forces inside (I admit that sounds weird).

[Sugetsu]

Originally Posted by Raiga

No.

Stop.

By all means go back to reading CERN publications, but don't use the simplified science you read about on CNN to justify giving Keshe the benefit of the doubt.

Instead of trowing insults at me why don't you actually contribute to the subject instead of just posting some rants? I might just be a computer scientists but that doesn't stop me from dwelling into other areas of science because I very much enjoy it. Why don't you go back to CNN and see if you pick up something that might be interesting to say here?

Originally Posted by Ledgem

That the Zeitgeist movement is trying to spread this around really hurts their credibility in my eyes. I guess they're conspiracy theorists? Interestingly, I recently came across a psychology study indicating that conspiracy theorists (and free-market believers) tend not to trust ("believe in") science. I suppose making that leap isn't a big deal: it's a nice fantasy to think that all of the solutions for turning the world into a perfect utopia are already here, but human greed is getting in the way. If you fall into that fantasy, it means that utopia can be achieved if we fight against something. Fighting against things is easy. The reality - that those creations to make the world a perfect place require fundings and hundreds of thousands of man-hours in the lab - is much more boring and difficult. If I weren't grounded to reality and chose to believe what ever I want, I'd go with the former belief.

This is nothing that has officially been endorsed on the movement's website, they are not trying to spread this information. I got this info from a member of Zeitgeist Colombia through forwarded email. I found it interesting and decided to dig a little further and came to post on this forums because I find people like you in here who actually can contribute to my investigation of this Kesh organization.

But you got to give this Kesh guy some credit for having the balls to be so forthcoming with his research; to open up a center for the public and invite scientific and public scrutiny is quite a gutsy move. It makes me very curious as to whether he has a devious agenda or if he is really on the bleeding edge of science.

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

But I still am willing to listen. Because simply put he has not published any formal paper yet.

Well actually has published 3 books and some scientific papers. One of those papers can be found here, I am having trouble find his papers on the website, he is supposed to have more.

[sa547]

Originally Posted by Xenio

travel from Tehran to New York will be about 10 minutes? arcording to Google Maps Distance Calculator, the distance is about 9867.187 km, which mean that unless they teleport, whatever use to travel will travel at about 16445 m/s or 59202 km/h, is that even possible without killing everyone inside or friction tearing the thing apart? 0_o, and how the hell are they going to decelerate?

Unless it has to be a nuke warhead fired as a projectile from a powerful railgun.

[DonQuigleone]

It's not really gravitational force any more then is it? It's just a mysterious unnamed force.

Gravitational force is the force that draws two masses together. You cannot tell if a particular force is being produced by gravitation, you see a force and conclude due to the circumstances that it's gravitation.

@Jinto, All forces accelerate masses, that's what a force is. And you need force to overcome inertia. But the inertia isn't being "nullified", it's just being err "counteracted". It never becomes a non-factor.

Also your mechanics are a bit faulty there. To produce acceleration, you must have a force of some kind. That is how acceleration of a mass occurs. IE Force = Mass X Acceleration. You cannot have an "unknown" acceleration. In your case the gravitational force is counteracting the accelerating force, in which case the body in question will not feel any acceleration at all.

Inertia is not precisely a force to be counteracted, it is simply the property of a body to resist acceleration. This is not an additive factor, but a multiplicative factor. Mathematically, depending on the scenario, the inertia of a body is identical to it's mass, or alternatively it's momentum.

The resistance that you might thinking of overcoming is friction or air resistance, which in itself is a set of forces. In a vacuum like outer space, these do not occur. On earth, this leads to the often mistaken idea that you need constant force to propel a body forwards. This is false, you only need constant force to overcome friction, and then further force to produce acceleration (not velocity).

This is why I say you cannot "nullify" inertia. Inertia is why the same force accelerates a small bullet forward at hundreds of meters a second, but only causes the person holding the gun to be pushed back a little bit. The person, possessing larger mass, has more inertia then the tiny bullet. The same force produces a far more dramatic effect on the bullet.

@Cosmic Eagle: My background is Mechanical Engineering, so I'm not too solid beyond classical mechanics. That said, just the language he's using is shady. He's basically talking about producing mysterious forces by interlocking magnetic fields (even though electrical/magnetic fields already produce a "mysterious force", it's called magnetism!). There's no reason to call it "gravity", how can we know it's using the same mechanism as gravity? How can you verify it by experimentation? The only way you could prove something was gravitational in nature would be to go down to quantum theory, and detect the so called particle that carries gravity (the graviton), but that particle is still completely hypothetical, and has never been experimentally found in a particle accelerator. Unless there's two masses involved, and they're both attracting one another, there's no reason to say that it's gravity. He's just saying it's gravity because it sounds nice, and more plausible then what a real physicist would call such a new force (something like "hypermagnetism" or similar). But, magnetism is so well studied and documented, I find it highly unlikely he could have found something new concerning it.

He's doing bad science.

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

It's not really gravitational force any more then is it? It's just a mysterious unnamed force.

Gravitational force is the force that draws two masses together. You cannot tell if a particular force is being produced by gravitation, you see a force and conclude due to the circumstances that it's gravitation.


@Cosmic Eagle: My background is Mechanical Engineering, so I'm not too solid beyond classical mechanics. That said, just the language he's using is shady. He's basically talking about producing mysterious forces by interlocking magnetic fields (even though electrical/magnetic fields already produce a "mysterious force", it's called magnetism!). There's no reason to call it "gravity", how can we know it's using the same mechanism as gravity? How can you verify it by experimentation? The only way you could prove something was gravitational in nature would be to go down to quantum theory, and detect the so called particle that carries gravity (the graviton), but that particle is still completely hypothetical, and has never been experimentally found in a particle accelerator. Unless there's two masses involved, and they're both attracting one another, there's no reason to say that it's gravity. He's just saying it's gravity because it sounds nice, and more plausible then what a real physicist would call such a new force (something like "hypermagnetism" or similar). But, magnetism is so well studied and documented, I find it highly unlikely he could have found something new concerning it.

He's doing bad science.

No no, the experiment is not by him...I was just wondering if his idea was based on a similar result obtained.

This keshe guy has not produced any experiments for his basis

Still, that's a good point about definitions.......Even so, the possibility of a new fundamental force (or way in which EM works) merits some investigation.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

This keshe guy has not produced any experiments for his basis

Still, that's a good point about definitions.......Even so, the possibility of a new fundamental force (or way in which EM works) merits some investigation.

Certainly. Either way though, Keshe's claims are false.

[Cosmic Eagle]

As for inertia....well it'd be more worthwhile to see what actually causes it.

Come to think of it, hasn't it been explained away by Mach's Principle?

[RRW]

this thing sound like coming from anime. like GN particle and stuff

[Sugetsu]

I found one of his experiments. What do you guys think?

In this video (two parts: total 15 minutes) Nuclear engineer Keshe demonstrates with a non-acidic liquid inside a simple waste-bottle, used as a plasma reactor, that it is possible to create low levels of energy and that atomic carbon-layers are deposited on the inside electrodes, which is confirmed by a Nuclear Center after independent replication, and is confirmed by a leading Nano-Institute in Europe after Raman spectroscopy. For the creation of the carbon sp2 and sp3 and the energy, no additional sources like magnets, lasers, arcs or gamma rays is used. See http://www.keshetechnologies.com/keshe_pure_plasma.html

The experiment happens at room temperature and normal atmospheric pressure.

To Keshe, the physical interactions and events which are forced inside the plasma reactor are similar or identical to those that happen over a longer time-scale on micro- and macro-level in the Universe, like the formation of stars and galaxies, supernova's, black holes, dark matter, gravitational effects, radiation, fission and fusion, and so on.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

...
@Jinto, All forces accelerate masses, that's what a force is. And you need force to overcome inertia. But the inertia isn't being "nullified", it's just being err "counteracted". It never becomes a non-factor.

Also your mechanics are a bit faulty there. To produce acceleration, you must have a force of some kind. That is how acceleration of a mass occurs. IE Force = Mass X Acceleration. You cannot have an "unknown" acceleration. In your case the gravitational force is counteracting the accelerating force, in which case the body in question will not feel any acceleration at all.

Inertia is not precisely a force to be counteracted, it is simply the property of a body to resist acceleration. This is not an additive factor, but a multiplicative factor. Mathematically, depending on the scenario, the inertia of a body is identical to it's mass, or alternatively it's momentum.

The resistance that you might thinking of overcoming is friction or air resistance, which in itself is a set of forces. In a vacuum like outer space, these do not occur. On earth, this leads to the often mistaken idea that you need constant force to propel a body forwards. This is false, you only need constant force to overcome friction, and then further force to produce acceleration (not velocity).

This is why I say you cannot "nullify" inertia. Inertia is why the same force accelerates a small bullet forward at hundreds of meters a second, but only causes the person holding the gun to be pushed back a little bit. The person, possessing larger mass, has more inertia then the tiny bullet. The same force produces a far more dramatic effect on the bullet.

...

I acknowledge that we are just arguing over semantics here. I suppose you understood what I tried to say. Btw. only forces that actually interact with masses can accelerate masses. Hence my distinction. Take the gravitational force that is only supposed to interact with the mass of traveller in the spaceship but not the spaceship itself (I know its hypothetical, but its important to make the whole thing work).

Of course I am aware that you cannot truely nullify inertia, only the resulting forces (for me thats just semantics though).

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Instead of trowing insults at me why don't you actually contribute to the subject instead of just posting some rants? I might just be a computer scientists but that doesn't stop me from dwelling into other areas of science because I very much enjoy it. Why don't you go back to CNN and see if you pick up something that might be interesting to say here?

There's no insults thrown anywhere in that statement.
When he said go back to reading CERN, he said in a literal sense, that it's OK to read CERN documents for sources, just not media outlets.

You might wanna re-read it carefully. You're certainly not reading his post right.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

As for inertia....well it'd be more worthwhile to see what actually causes it.

Come to think of it, hasn't it been explained away by Mach's Principle?

You don't need to go that far. Inertia, in the every day sense, is simply your mass, or momentum, depending on the problem you want to solve. That is what "causes" inertia.

Now if you want to know what causes mass well...

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

I found one of his experiments. What do you guys think?

It's a hoax. It makes very little sense.

Also, depositing those carbon layers is not particularly amazing. Look at the electrodes inside your car battery sometime.

Also, it's completely unreproducible, because they neglect to say what they're mysterious liquid is.

As for the reading on the multimeter, that's ridiculously easy to fake. Even I could rewire a multimeter to fake it.

Originally Posted by Jinto

I acknowledge that we are just arguing over semantics here. I suppose you understood what I tried to say. Btw. only forces that actually interact with masses can accelerate masses. Hence my distinction. Take the gravitational force that is only supposed to interact with the mass of traveller in the spaceship but not the spaceship itself (I know its hypothetical, but its important to make the whole thing work).

How can gravity effect the traveller, and not the ship? If any object has mass (as the spaceship would have) it is affected by gravity, in proportion to it's mass. Both would accelerate at the same rate.

Also, there aren't any forces that don't interact with mass. Because Force=Mass X Acceleration, it doesn't really work when there's no mass there.

[Raiga]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Also, there aren't any forces that don't interact with mass. Because Force=Mass X Acceleration, it doesn't really work when there's no mass there.

Technically, force is the time derivative of momentum. Some particles (such as the photon) can have zero mass but nonzero momentum. Assuming mass is finite and static, then the equation simplifies to the familiar F=ma, but some problems involve changing mass (such as a rocket) and are best solved with F=dp/dt.

Just a fun fact.

[/themoreyouknow]

But it's definitely true that "nullifying" inertia is simply not a thing. If a force is applied to an object of fixed, finite mass (like humans) then it will accelerate.

I think Jinto may be thinking of how electric fields won't accelerated uncharged nonconducting objects. But that doesn't mean any masses are "immune" to forces or that there are forces that "do not act on mass/inertia."

The simple answer is that the uncharged nonconducting object does not accelerate under an electric field because there is no force. Electric fields only apply forces to charged objects. So it's not that the force "does not act on the mass", it's that the force isn't there to begin with, just the potential field.

Spoiler for The long answer is...:

F=ma only applies to a NET force on a closed system. If all the forces in a system cancel out, then naturally there will be no acceleration. Right now you are sitting in front of your computer, feeling the force of gravity, but the normal force from your chair cancels it out (the normal force is the macroscopic effect of the electrons in the atoms of your rear repelling the electrons in the atoms of the chair; in other words, normal force is electromagnetic. When you press your hand against a table, the table does not move because of normal force).

So an uncharged nonconducting object in an electric field actually does feel some force, but the force acts in one direction on all the electrons and in the other direction on all the protons, and the electrons and protons are also attracted to each other, and the protons are attracted to the neutrons by strong force, and so on and so forth, until at the end of the day there is zero net force on the macroscopic object. F=ma, so zero net force means zero acceleration.

When an object is charged and/or conducting then there WILL be a net force when it experiences an electric field. If you have a static charge on your body, that doesn't mean an electric field will cause you to go flying. Friction and gravity and normal force still exist to cancel out the tiny electric force you'll feel from that charge. However, a highly charged object in a low-friction environment in an electric field will definitely accelerate, no ifs ands or buts.

If a net force acts on a mass, the mass will accelerate. That's all there is to it. It's been proven again and again empirically for the past four hundred years, and derived mathematically in many different ways.

If Keshe wants to get you across the globe in 10 minutes. he'll need to accelerate you, and to accelerate you he'll need to apply a massive amount of force, and you can bet your body will not survive the Gs.

Maybe Keshe's disproved classical mechanics, but classical mechanics has worked pretty damn well for the past four hundred years, so forgive me for doubting that claim.

[DonQuigleone]

Quite right.

And let's be honest here, we're not talking about evolution or anything like that. Classical Mechanics is perhaps the most uncontroversial part of science you can possible imagine. The only people who disagree with it are the crazies who think the sun goes around the earth, and that the earth is supported on the back of elephants standing on a giant turtle.

[Destined_Fate]

Seems to good to be true but, eh I've seen my share of impossible things so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Destined_Fate

Seems to good to be true but, eh I've seen my share of impossible things so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

Don't.

Be a skeptic.

Always, always be a skeptic with claims like these. Ask if they have had peer review, ask for the details of their experiments, ask for how their theory fits into and contradict the present scientific understanding.

And if you don't understand what they're trying to say -- something quite likely with scientific subjects -- do not assume they know what they're talking about, educate yourself.

I'm quoting you but I'm more or less directing this at Sugetsu. And to speak more frankly: Sugetsu, first you admitted you were skeptical of the claims, yet now that people has more or less universally called it bullshit (and it is), you ended up backtracking and are now starting to try to defend it. Don't. Be that skeptic you momentarily were somewhere on that first page. Do it for yourself.