IUBio

Budding neurologist

K C Cheng kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com
Sat Sep 26 08:21:24 EST 1998


Walter Eric Johnson wrote:
> =

> K C Cheng (kccheng at postoffice.idirect.com) wrote:
> : Why should photons remain photons in the speeding form?  Can't they
> : become stationary electromagnetic particles on being stopped and be
> : taken into electrons?   In fact, this is the basis of photoelectricit=
y
> : proven by Einstein.  When travelling photons are teken into electrons=
 of
> : a metal,  an electric current arises carrying the photonic
> : electromagnetic particles inside them.  How else could they have beco=
me
> : so activated into flowing free electrons?   This also occurs in the
> : nervous system.   If photons can become stationary inclusions in the
> : electrons of photoelectricity, why can't they become the same in the
> : nervous system? =
> =

> In the photoelectric effect (which was discovered well before
> Einstein was born), shining light on a metal plate causes electrons
> to be ejected from the plate.  Einstein's part was to explain the
> emission of the electrons as a quantum effect.  When the photon
> is absorbed, the electrons gain in kinetic energy and some of the
> electrons end up escaping from the metal.  Please note that the
> photon no longer exists.
I therefore did say that the information is induced or taken into the
electrons as electromagnetic particles, not necessarily called photons
any more.  That's just a question of nomenclature, nothing significant
about that. =

> : As I said, I welcome questions of this nature.  However, please do no=
t
> : jump to conclusions before reading all of my writings.  =
> =

> It's clear that your knowledge of the material about which you
> write is woefully lacking.  Why should anyone want to read them?
> There is plenty of material available upon which to make a solid
> judgement.
That's because you don't now how much I know.  See below: =

> : Memory being electromagnetic particles is rather difficult to accept.=

> : That's because it's difficult to prove.
> =

> It is very difficult to prove the impossible.
That's your skepticism.  Before the atomic bomb exploded,   even Bohr,
deliberately ot not, predicted that it's impossible, and therefore
Einstein's  E=mc2 would have been laughed off as "impossible."   But,
what if I have proven the "impossible?"  =

> : That's why it has taken me 20
> : volumes to make it so convincing that one can see  them go in, and se=
e
> : them come out.
> =

> Please cite any legitimate peer-reviewed journals which back up
> your claims.
I am just coming out with some of them in the print form, and others
like the video, I am only completing.  Hence, no peer review possible. =

I'll try to give international committees a chance to review them. =

> : This is particularly so the case in my video,   about
> : 13~14 hours, that I am completing.
> : Of course, I can't put 13 hours of video on the web.  Those of you wh=
o
> : are skeptical enough would have a chance to see the whole thing next
> : January on its world-wide release.  I understand that people would no=
t
> : wish to shell out  $125 for something they could not be sure of its
> : absolute value.
> =

> We can be sure.  Absolute value should be about the value of the
> tapes so we can tape over them.
> =

> : So, maybe you all should consider having some people out
> : there doing a comprehensive assessment and tell you that  it's more t=
han
> : your money's worth. =
> =

> You're just trying to sell snake oil.
Well, why don't you wait and see?  You're just unwilling to risk a few
dollars. =

> : As I said, I welcome questions on why you think I maybe wrong.  I'll
> : answer them if  it's short and simple.  But, otherwise, if you want t=
he
> : whole proof, you'll have to buy my videos.
> =

> If you really had something of value, you could publish it in
> the peer-reviewed journals.
How do you suggest I publish videos and 19 volumes in peer reviewed
publications? Videos and such are being peer-reviewd by leading
institutions. =

> : I can refund you academics
> : if you're not satisfied that it's proven beyond the slightest scienti=
fic
> : doubt.  I don't think Einstein guaranteed to refund to those unable t=
o
> : understand his Theory of Relativity.
> =

> Didn't he publish in the existing journals?
Not his Theory of Relativity??  Wasn't it published by an American book
company? =

> : And, yet, how many bought it?
> =

> Most people who could understand it already had access to the journals.=

> =

> : How
> : many bought Darwin when I have refuted him?
> =

> You claim to have refuted him.  That's all.
But, don't you think you should read my volumes too  before saying that
it's just my claim? =

> : Please do not let skeptism get the best of you.  I may be right, and =
you
> : may be wrong.   After all, I  have time and webspoace to put out only=
 so
> : few pages.
> =

> Are your thought processes as disorderly as your web pages?  I
> cannot imagine that anyone would be convinced by them.
Webpages are difficult to be  as "orderly" as the books.  They are
hyper-linked and tend to jump from place to the next relevant place. A
type of modern convenience. =

> : Would I understand Einstein's Theory of relativity had I
> : not known his maths?
> =

> I'd hate to hear you try to explain tensor analysis on manifolds.
> I seriously doubt that you understand much, if anything, about
> the subject.
I don't claim what I DON'T KNOW.  I CAN hardly understand advanced
calculus, not having taken such at all.  That's why I havn't commented
on his Relativity yet.  But, I'll get there. =

> : No! Would I understand it had I not read his whole
> : theory?
> =

> Once again, there is no reason to suspect that you have any
> understanding of the Special or General theories.
But that has nothing to do with the electromagnetism of memory,
mentation, and behavior. The main tehing is for me to know the relevant
to memory and the mind, not to talk about things having nothing to do
with the subject. =

> : No!   So, please wait and see. The proof is the thing in any
> : scientific doctrine.  Whether right or wrong  depends on it. That's w=
hy
> : only after, not before, reading and digesting the whole proof should
> : anyone voice an opinion on the electromagnetism of memory, mentation =
and
> : behavaiur.
> =

> There are thousands of kooks who are attempting to pass off their
> halucinations as fact.   If you want to be taken seriously, publish
> your material in legitimate peer-reviewed journals.  Otherwise,
> don't expect anyone to bother trying to understand the material.
> Experience rapidly teaches one that someone who is not highly
> knowledgeable about a scientific discipline is extremely unlikely
> to be correct when asserting that the current theories are wrong.
> =

> : It is incredible that these should be under electromagnetic
> : control.  But, what if I have proven it? Then, it's real---however
> : indredible it may be. =
> =

> You haven't proven anything.  Assertions to the contrary are either
> lies or signs that you have fooled yourself.
> =

> Eric Johnson
I am not hiding.  I am trying to have a means to deliver the proof to
the public.  But, there are serious limitations to publishing one's
works when it may be economically unsound for some publishers, and
impossible for others.  Let me know, who would invest millions of
dollars just to publish so many volumes? The fault is not mine. It takes
MONEY to do what you ask of me. Therefore, I suggest, since my videos
are very comprehensible to those even without much medical background,
if you want to serioiusly know whether I am a kook or real great one, be
more friendly and I might even let you have a preview for nothing.  As
said, some universities are already getting them for USE.
-- =

kccheng =BEG=ABa=B8s
http://www.easyhosting.com/~kccheng



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net