I suppose I've already started part one of my report in a different thread titled ORBS CONFERENCE. If you're interested, you may want to read that thread first. Since I promised Dr. Tiller that I would read this book, I am going to read it and give my honest opinion. Since many of you are interested in orbs, I thought I would give a running commentary on the book so I don't forget any of the important points I want to make.

I've already mentioned Dr. Tiller's foreward to the book. I'm not sure who their intended audience is, but at times the level of scientific jargon goes from zero to 1000 and back again. This can be rather jarring. Honestly, you already have to be an expert in advanced physics to even comprehend what they're talking about.

Advanced physics can appear with little or no warning or preparation. What worries me about this is that it is so advanced that it is incomprehensible to the average reader. The authors must know this. Since they don't bother to explain the science, that makes me suspicious. Perhaps they are trying to drown us in jargon that they assume is without retort by the large majority of their readers. Who knows. Here's an example:

"Many scientists now believe that all substances posses their own torsion field. Torsion waves can travel at speeds in excess of the speed of light and there is no loss of speed as the waves spread."

No warning, and no explanation of what a torsion field or wave is. They just throw those terms at you hoping to overwhelm you. They follow those up with statements that are difficult to consider adequately without having a degree in advanced physics.

Here's another quote:

"A gravitational field is identical to the longitudinal spin polarization of the physical vacuum, while a torsion field is identical to the transverse spin polarization of the physical vacuum."

Or how about this one:

"Torsion radiation of a physical material will result only in the alteration of its spin state. However, an alteration of the spin state of the physical vacuum can result in changes to the polarization angle of a light beam."

Again, who is their audience? Subjecting readers to this level of science without explanation concerns me. If they're trying to prove a point then they need to make it understandable to their readers. Unless, of course, they expect the average reader to be well versed in advanced physics.

By the way, a quick search on torsion waves and fields indicates that these terms are often thrown around in unscientific ways to explain the unexplainable. Whether their is real science to back up these ideas is debatable and I'm in no position to join the debate.

After mentioning torsion waves and fields and their magical properties we find this gem: "If a torsion field is superimposed on a gravitational field in a certain area, it may result in the reduction of gravity in that area." He goes on to say, "A prime example is when a person levitates."

Hold the phone! What?? We just jumped from extremely advanced science to this? Their proof of the existence of torsion fields is that people levitate? What people? If you can show me one real example of a person levitating, get back to me. I'd *love* to see it. Until then, I remain unconvinced that it ever happens.

The other thing that concerns me about this is that this same author has a wildly inaccurate understanding of the electromagnetic spectrum. He has already shown such earlier in the book. Can we trust such a person with advanced theoretical physics when he has shown a lack of understanding of high school physics?

Those of you interested in orbs, please comment. I'm going to continue reading the book and honestly assessing its claims. I would love to hear your insight about this stuff as I go along. I'll keep you updated.

John
I thank you for this post and your ongoing intention to provide a book report. I have run into books like this myself and I am certainly not a scientist - didn't even do well in high school science LOL. SOme books have some gems in layperson language that make wading through the jargon worthwhile. Others are - as you say - an attempt to overwhelm the average Joe with their buzz words - and that is no help at all.....

On a related note, since I don't have sufficient background in physics to question some of this stuff, I'm having portions of it checked out by others who do have a background in it, particularly quantum particle physics. So far, without exception, they all have said this is pseudo-scientific nonsense. One respondent was even less generous and said that the author had apparently spent way too much time smoking crack. lol

It's not looking good, but I press on undaunted. :-)

Okay, I've pretty much finished the "scientific" portion of this book. I've also spent a lot of the day discussing this issue with experts in physics. In addition, I've searched the web for information on IR photography, digital photography anomalies and the operation of CCDs in digital cameras. Basically, I've learned a lot about digital photography today.

Without exception, the true experts in optics and photography provide entirely suitable explanations for the orb phenomenon. It doesn't take much research to find out how digital cameras work, how CCD images are created, and how these sorts of anomalies occur. They're not even anomalies. They're easily explained by the people who understand how the process works.

It appears that people involved in this book, primarily Micael Ledwith and Klaus Heinemann, are not qualified to directly address this issue. Their expertise lies in other fields. The seem to know a fair amount about digital photography, but the shallowness of their knowledge is apparent when you compare their writings with those who really understand this stuff.

The last remaining significant mystery for me was a picture of an orb that appeared to be behind a person. That would seem to indicate that the orb was a real object of some sort and not a close-up particulate caught in a flash. I pondered this for a while and considered that perhaps the light reflecting from the distant object is a stronger amplitude than the light reflecting off of the close-up particulate. That might result in a washing-out of the "orb". I found a letter from Dr. Bruce Maccabee, a real expert in optics, that addresses this exact issue and explains that I was essentially correct.

I even did some testing around my house and got several good orb photos. It's not difficult to do. Interestingly, I saw no orbs whatsoever in my pictures taken outside at night, but I saw lots of them inside my home.

Most orb photos are the result of dust or other particulates in close proximity to the flash and the lens. The precise characteristics of the particulates can cause the orbs to vary in size, consistency, color and brightness. In most cases, you see a repeating circular pattern that alternates between darker and lighter rings. This is a simple diffraction artifact similar to a Fresnel lens.

You also often see a variation of colors throughout the orb, often resulting in a bluish orb with a yellowish tint around the edge. This is a common optical feature called chromatic aberration (or perhaps a related phenomenon called spherical aberration). This is an "anomaly" created by refracting light through a lens. Different wavelengths of light bend to varying degrees, resulting in the colors showing up in different places.

[If you're curious, here's what a distant star looks like with varying degrees of spherical aberration: http://home.digitalexp.com/~suiterhr/TM/kriege.jpg ]

My discussions with a particular physicist have convinced me that the so-called science presented in this book is nothing more than junk science. It's pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook. It means nothing to real physicists. It's based on work by some Russian scientists that was proven fraudulent. It was quite literally baseless. The verbiage in this book seems to be an obvious attempt to overwhelm the reader with such high-level science that they can come to no other conclusion than to believe the authors. This is a natural reaction by people biased toward the work of the authors. However, it is not an objective viewpoint and I don't think it's healthy.

So, that's the end of the orb road for me. I was willing to look at the evidence and I did so. I didn't just dismiss it. I researched it and found completely natural explanations for all of it and also found evidence that contradicted the authors of the book. In some points, I found parts of the book where the science was easily proven wrong. I also found a couple of instances where the authors contradicted each other.

This book is not a scientific treatise, although it seems to really want to be one at times. I don't think it's outright fraud by the authors, but I do think their biases are getting the best of them. They are overlooking the well-known scientific explanations for what they're seeing in favor of their own hypotheses. I wouldn't call this fraud, but I do think it is self-serving. They do, after all, have books to sell and seats at conferences to fill.

That's it for me with regard to orbs, at least this particular kind of orb. Self-luminescent orbs are a different story entirely!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Neiby,

Hi,

Very Interesting.

Glad you state you are objective and also that your own knowledge of physics is not absolute.
You also state you have consulted with people who are qualified but I'll bet those you consulted do not believe in orbs.

All scientists, in fact everyone, has some idea in the back of their mind when they undertake a research or study project and will, no matter how impartial they state they are, find the means of reinforcing that idea. Therefore their research will always prove what they innately believe or at the very least, colour the research. Or it will prove what they are being paid to produce.
Also most scientists hate to rock the boat and are often reluctant to even talk about the possibility of something new being true.It takes literally decades to establish a platform of credibility and respect, and that can be destoyed overnight by making claims for something which has not been proven.
In order for anything to be established in science it needs to pass through certain accepted criteria.

Dr Susan Schmidt a retired professor of Neuropathology and Opthalmology who taught at Harvard Medical School explains that: 'for any research to be valid and respected amongst conventional scientists , it must conform to at least 5 standards: the research is performed under controlled conditions; it is replicable by other scientists in other locations; it is performed using double blind protocol; it is peer reviewed by other scientists; and results are published in scientifically accepted journals'.
'Nevertheless', Dr Schmidt said, 'everyone does it; everyone follows their own vision anyway. Einstein called it 'the use of imagination'. he followed his intuition. Of course it can bias the results when you are expecting something, looking for something. But we cannot avoid the fact that everyone speculates.'

From the beginning all of your research and reports have been directed at proving that orbs as spirit are a fantasy and like the Professors and others who write in support of orbs and who patently believe in them, you all create your own result before you have even started.

Whether or not you acknowledge this and still cling to the idea that you are being impartial and objective is a moot point.

We all hold our own beliefs and persue our own desires whatever the world or anyone says to the contrary. We all consistently have this burning need to prove that we are right and that what we say is absolutely true and the other person is completely wrong.

Personally I like to believe in orbs as the manifestation of spirit energies. It suits me to do this and brings a measure of comfort to my mind.

Thank you for all the time and effort you have put in. I enjoyed reading all the debate on the Orb threads.

Anyway whatever the arguments, or the proof, we will all continue to have our own ideas of what is and what is not - that my friend is reality!

Love and light
Faune
Certified Practitioner

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Faune,

You're actually wrong about me, faune. I didn't believe that orbs are anything spiritual, but I did want them to be. How awesome would that be to be able to get instant "proof" of these sorts of non-physical entities simply by photographing them with the right equipment?

In my line of work, it's easy to be objective about things. Disagreements between co-workers is common, but they can always be dealt with by rationally and logically looking at the the situation. I'm often wrong and have no problem admitting that when my error is shown to me. I carry that same attitude with me when I consider metaphysical things.

Also, I didn't ask those scientists about orbs. I asked them about torsion fields and torsion waves. Big difference. I didn't want them to know why I was asking. It may make you feel better to continue to think that I wasn't being fair and objective, but I can assure you that I was.

Some of you seem to think that I am not open-minded. That's absolutely not the case. I change my mind quite easily when presented with sufficient evidence for something. What's the point in ignoring evidence? Dr. Tiller suggested to me that this book contained the evidence, so I read it and it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You don't have to believe anything I say. If you get some benefit from thinking that these are spiritual entities of some variety then please continue to do so.

OH Dear Neiby,

Quote 'I didn't believe that orbs are anything spiritual, but I did want them to be.'

Sorry, but 'Hoist by your own petard' springs to mind. If that was the premise, then it simply proves that you were seeking to debunk the theory that orbs are a spiritual manifestation!

After my early years in the theatre and my last 26 years in National Government as psychologist/staff trainer I am quite able to appreciate what can be achieved with smoke , mirrors, statistics and manipulation of both figures and words.

Also Thank You so much for your kind permission to allow me to continue to carry out my own thought processes. Obviously I shall do so.

PAX?
Love and light
Faune
Certified Practitioner

You continue to purposefully misunderstand what I'm saying. You apparently do not acknowledge that it is possible to be objective about things whether or not you "agree" with them. This is how real science gets done. In fact, in science, it is not necessary to believe anything. You simply follow the evidence where it leads and continue to refine your theories as new evidence is presented. No leap of faith is ever required.

I was simply saying that although I have never seen any evidence that orbs were anything spiritual, I did have an inner wish that the evidence would ultimately show that to be the case.

You obviously don't need my permission to believe whatever you like. There's no need to take this so personally. It is personal attachment to beliefs that make people less objective. It is my position that we should always be willing to slay our own sacred cows if it becomes necessary. I have slain several of mine in the past and continue to do so. Perhaps that approach doesn't work for you. I encourage all of you to take whatever approach works for you.

Dear Neiby,
I was not going to reply as this is becoming very personal. 'Purposefully misunderstand'? well no, I'd say I understood you very well.

The mind is a strange thing. Everything is filtered through it. So yes,from my years of experience working with and observing all types of people, I concur with Einstein and Prof. Schmidt that everyone uses their intuition/imagination and it happens regardless. On one level
you may honestly believe that you are being objective but your mind always presents underlying ideas or doubts.

I have no wish to go around slaying sacred cows !
All that is needed is to observe yourself fully; include the good , bad and all points in between. Then accept yourself as you are now, totally and completely.
You are unique.

Love and light
Faune

Yes, perhaps I am not being as objective about my research as I purport to be. For all you know, I may be making it all up. Maybe I didn't spend hours reading the book and tracking down experts who understand this stuff.

But perhaps you are being a bit presumptuous? You act as if you know my thoughts, but you don't. I'm sure you didn't intend it, but your tone comes across as a bit condescending. I've been guilty of that a lot lately when I don't pay enough attention to the way I phrase things in writing.

I believe it is possible to be objective. Perhaps your experience tells you differently. We will have to agree to disagree. I see people be objective about things they don't "believe" almost daily as part of my career. From time to time, I'm on the wrong side of those discussions and I have no problem admitting that I'm wrong when presented with a rational explanation why. I think the same applies here.

I promise that from here on I won't presume to know your thoughts if you agree not to presume to know mine. Fair enough?

On a related note, even though I said I was done with this research, I'm still waiting to hear back from one more quantum physicist. I may also have a connection to two of the men who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2001. I'm not too hopeful about that avenue, but I will pursue it anyway. They're certainly qualified to discuss the topic.