Genuine Contactee?

Just read Daniel Fry's two books on physics, Steps to the stars and Atom, Galaxies and understanding.

Is it being suggested that the inertial gravity of electrons can be used to manipulate the shape of a gravitational field to the negative?
You are awesome. I've discussed these two books at length online, on many occasions, and you're the first person I've encountered who actually bothered to read them. They're short, and written with a supremely readable ease and clarity (the kind of easy clarity that I've only encountered in the writings of Einstein and Heisenberg and the other great minds) - and they're freely available online for anyone to read...but nobody I've discussed them with has ever gone to the trouble of actually looking them over, except you. Kudos. And thank you for making the effort. Frankly I'm still not certain that these books were written by a human mind...they are so deceptively simple...and subtly nuanced...I've never encountered anything quite like them: they're so fascinating that I've spent years studying them, and I still feel like I haven't fully understood them.

To answer your question: honestly I'm not sure. In that example he's saying that the mass, as well as the number and position of positive and negative charges, determines whether the gravitational interaction with an addition neutron is positive or negative. I spent years studying nuclear physics to try to suss out the underlying theory that he's talking about here - and while I ran across some fascinating observations, I haven't been able to put it all together yet. If I could, then I'm pretty sure we'd arrive at the grand unified theory that he's describing in his books, and then we could analyze that theory to see if it holds up under intense analytical scrutiny (and I can imagine no greater joy than examining such a theory and comparing it to all of our best modern measurements).

Here's what we do know. We know that a pair of opposing electrical charges results in binding energy, and that energy is negative - a pair of bound and opposing electrical charges loses gravitational mass, compared to two unbound (widely separated) opposing electrical charges. And we know that two like charges in close proximity increases the gravitational mass of the system, because the potential energy of such a system is higher than two like charges widely separated in free space. In other words, a negative potential energy between unlike electrical charges reduces the gravitational mass of a system, and a positive potential energy between two like charges increases the gravitational mass of the system. We could choose to think of this as "the gravitational law of electrical charge." Or we could simply regard it as a feature of the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor of general relativity. Both choices are valid, but the latter is more comprehensive.

Then we might choose to consider "the gravitational law of mass-charge interactions," which has the exact opposite sign. Two bound and interacting positive mass-charges (the Earth and the Moon for example) yield a negative gravitational mass term known as the gravitational binding energy: the bound Earth-Moon system has a lower gravitational mass than the Earth and the Moon widely separated in space. However, a positive mass-charge like the Earth, in close proximity to a negative mass-charge, yields an increase in the gravitational mass of the system. This is because gravitation is defined by a rank-two tensor, whereas electromagnetism is defined by a rank-one tensor.

Fry's books on physics are suggesting that the nuclear strong force is essentially the same law as the gravitational acceleration defined by general relativity: by definition this would be a unified field theory - a marriage of quantum mechanics with general relativity. And the illustrations of the nuclear charge distributions are apparently the key to puzzling out this union of two seemingly disparate physical theories. But I'm either not clever enough to puzzle out this theory from the clues he's given in his books, or the theory that he's talking about isn't valid. But since in my heart I do believe that the laws of physics ranging from quantum mechanics to general relativity are in fact inescapably related to a single and more fundamental unified field theory, I'm forced to conclude that, as yet, I haven't been intelligent enough to formulate the correct theory mathematically.

I could state this more concisely: if I could answer your question, then I could tell you how to build a craft that would fall away from the Earth as naturally as an apple falls toward the Earth.

It's been years since I puzzled over the nuclear binding energy measurements of NIST, trying to unravel this particular feature of Daniel Fry's two books on physics. But I do recall one particular finding that has always stuck in my craw: if we take the neutron to be the fundamental unit of mass, then the net binding energy of the Uranium-235 nucleus is the equivalent of two negative-mass neutrons. I find that to be absolutely fascinating, in the context of Fry's descriptions that you quoted. Also, I found a pattern of binding energy fractions in the periodic table that consisted of fractions of 1/12th's and 1/24th's and 1/48th's...which seemed to validate his discussion about using a base-12, rather than a base-10, numerical system.

I hope to return to this study when time permits, to try again. But it takes months of late nights with a notebook and dozens of pages of our best experimental lab data lying on the bed next to a scientific calculator, to try to puzzle this sort of thing out. And such long stretches of time which can be devoted to pure theoretical physics research are, unfortunately, very hard to come by.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Frankly I'm still not certain that these books were written by a human mind...they are so deceptively simple...and subtly nuanced...I've never encountered anything quite like them: they're so fascinating that I've spent years studying them, and I still feel like I haven't fully understood them.

Could you elaborate on this comment please, its a most curious statement lol...

...
 

ChrisIB

Honorable
They're short, and written with a supremely readable ease and clarity (the kind of easy clarity that I've only encountered in the writings of Einstein and Heisenberg and the other great minds) .. Frankly I'm still not certain that these books were written by a human mind...they are so deceptively simple...and subtly nuanced...I've never encountered anything quite like them: they're so fascinating that I've spent years studying them, and I still feel like I haven't fully understood them.
The prose is clean, difficult to get a feel but:
There seems a slight reproof that it has taken us as long from the Greeks suggesting the atom to our current level.
A suggestion of a well worn path that civilisations take from the physics of the day to day, then the macro and galactic. Then unification.
Perhaps a gentle prod as relativity and it's non intuitive visualization has held us up.
They may be getting a little impatient.
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Long live science.

No need for mumbo-jumbo, but there is a need to have a strong conversation with some settled prejudice. Science had actually made great inroads into PSI research and got great repeatable results, but some scientists insist on "believing" in old ways, in spite of the available evidence. We are familiar with that attitude in ufology, aren't we.

Here is a great paper "Investigation of a Complex Space-Time Metricto Describe Precognition of the Future" by Elizabeth Rauscher and Russell Targ. Just to wet the appetite of your scientific mind here is a quote from that paper:

"... In this paper we present a geometrical model of space-time, which has already been extensively studied in the technical literature of mathematics and physics. This eight-dimensional metric is known as .complex Minkowski space," and has been shown to be consistent with our present understanding of the equations of Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and Schrödinger. It also has the interesting property of allowing a connection of zero distance between points in the complex manifold, which appear to be separate from one another in ordinary observation. "

What Rauscher is saying is: "Hey folks, complex Minkowski's space-time on which Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are based, allow for oneness of the universe in which all points in both space and time are connected. We even have name for this kind of thing, we call it non-local interactions." Obviously, I invite @Thomas R. Morrison to confirm or dispute this interpretation. Essentially what these scientists are saying there is an overlap between physic experience and the modern science.

Now if you want more of validated scientific research check this book "The Reality of ESP: A Physicist's Proof of Psychic Abilities" by physicist Russell Targ. Russell Targ worked with Hall Puthof at Stanford Research Institute on infamous CIA funded PSI research program. Infamous, or famous, they got statistically significant and interdependently confirmed results. Book covers dozens of physic experiments they did, but there are lots of documentaries on YouTube that are covering the same material.

Perennial difficulty with this type of research that real physic mediums are rare, but there are lots of people who think they are mediums by they are not. And, of course, there are lots of fakers, like Uri Geller. That throws lots of noise into this research. That's why I was asking @nivek if that woman he met was just epileptic or real medium.
 
Could you elaborate on this comment please, its a most curious statement lol...

...
ChrisIB explained it well when he posted this:
The prose is clean, difficult to get a feel but:
There seems a slight reproof that it has taken us as long from the Greeks suggesting the atom to our current level.
A suggestion of a well worn path that civilisations take from the physics of the day to day, then the macro and galactic. Then unification.
Perhaps a gentle prod as relativity and it's non intuitive visualization has held us up.
They may be getting a little impatient.
You're right - there's a sharp contrast in writing styles between Fry's personal account of his experience, and the two books about physics. The personal account reads like a 1950s-era pulp fiction story. This may well be for the reason that Fry claimed: that he wanted it to read like pulp fiction so the military reviewers would consider it to be exactly that, and permit him to publish it. But to my ear, the voice of A'lan in Fry's personal account sounds like the person speaking in the two physics books. Maybe Fry was clever enough to pull that off, but I doubt it - he wasn't a very good writer. But his two scientific books are brilliantly written.

They're not just brilliantly written though - and when I say "brilliantly written"what I mean is that to a casual reader they seem strangely simple, perhaps even mundane...but if you're paying close attention, there are all kinds of deep insights and tantalizing clues strewn throughout those books.

There's more to it though. In The White Sands Incident Fry notes that when he asks a question of the speaker, he receives an answer in a novel and compelling manner: the proof of the veracity of the answer, is built into the answer, eliminating all doubt that the statements are both correct and factual. That singular dynamic is found throughout the two science books. In fact it's so compelling and persuasive that I've adopted that methodology in my online discourses - whenever possible I endeavor to state my position and then back it up with the evidence and logic that convinces me that it's true. That way the reader can see an X-ray of my thought process and confront the same data that convinced me to adopt the position that I hold. It is quite simply the most logical and compelling strategy for communicating with others, that I've ever encountered. And we only find this style of communication within The White Sands Incident when A'lan is answering one of Fry's questions, and throughout both of the science books published under his name.

Furthermore, as ChrisIB also noticed, the voice we hear in the two science books very palpably comes across as someone who 1.) already knows the answers to the gigantic theoretical physics concepts that are loosely sketched out in those books, and 2.) seems to be chiding us (i.e.humans) a bit for failing to put together the pieces of the puzzle (i.e. a genuine grand unified field theory) because, apparently, we already have all of the clues we need in order to figure it out. So the two books on physics appear to be a kind of helping hand to highlight the key scientific data points required to formulate the correct unified field theory.

And the way this is done is breath-taking. The writer appears to be confined to using information that we either already know, or information that we could have known based on the existing scientific data, in order to pave a road for us to arrive at the correct model of physics - a unified field theory that will allow us to engineer a gravitational field propulsion device so we too can conduct rapid manned interstellar missions.

But in my view the most startling aspect of these books is the manner in which some of the most sophisticated concepts in special relativity and general relativity and gravitational field propulsion (which wasn't elucidated in the academic literature for another 42 years following the publication of these books), are conveyed with a simplicity and elegance so masterful that anyone reading them can understand them immediately and intuitively without employing mathematical equations to do it - the ideas in those books are all explained with simple and sensible heuristic tools. Like I said - I've only seen that kind of mastery with these kinds of concepts in the writings of our greatest minds, like Einstein and Heisenberg and Feynman. Daniel Fry was a very proficient scientific mind, but he wasn't at that level.

The author of those two books, however, was.

So I don't know who wrote them. It seems to me that these two books were probably either written by some genius scientist working within the US military black budget research programs and Fry created the alien contact story to establish a cover story for that writer so the info could be offered to the public, or they were written by some alien intelligence, and then published under Daniel Fry's name.

The fact that two such books written by an alleged alien contactee are more relevant and compelling today, than they were 60 years ago when they were published, should give anyone pause. I'm certainly mystified by all of this, and that delights me - I don't know what's going on here, but I see a raft of solid reasons to take it all very seriously. And at every turn, that approach has been vindicated by the march of scientific progress. The exact opposite has been true of every other contactee case that I've looked into - at best the other accounts read as quaint fiction which got easier to disprove every year as science advanced. These books however have only gotten more contemporary and scientifically relevant with every decade.

I've never seen that before. This is a genuine anomaly.
 

Ida G

Honorable
Very very fun. It is was a diamond at the place I did research with Deus Irae. It sinks, and does not fog. Could be diamond. Do not know how it ended up there. I have no diamond and no look-alike diamonds either. It was just there today.
Very blessed book.

If it continue giving diamond or other things, none will have this book. It is mine magical book!
It has everything to do about alien contactee if the aliens are fooling me around pretending to be ghosts
 

k

Honorable
Dejan Corovic, I see you're stubbornly repeating the word "epilepsy". I can't understand why this word and the word "Moses" lie in your brain in the same place. Why not "mother"? Do you ever think that the other people can have something sacred too?
Hey, Dejan! One schizophrenic allow you to be yourself! This is really cool! Can you take off your pants and start to run around like a child on the beach? Why not? You level is jumping with club like monkey and repeat "She is sick on her head! She needs in diaper! She has a bomb!" and so on. And at that time I materialize my personal deep subconscious wounds in the words to make you feel a pleasant cold.
 

k

Honorable
ChrisIB explained it well when he posted this:

You're right - there's a sharp contrast in writing styles between Fry's personal account of his experience, and the two books about physics. The personal account reads like a 1950s-era pulp fiction story. This may well be for the reason that Fry claimed: that he wanted it to read like pulp fiction so the military reviewers would consider it to be exactly that, and permit him to publish it. But to my ear, the voice of A'lan in Fry's personal account sounds like the person speaking in the two physics books. Maybe Fry was clever enough to pull that off, but I doubt it - he wasn't a very good writer. But his two scientific books are brilliantly written.

They're not just brilliantly written though - and when I say "brilliantly written"what I mean is that to a casual reader they seem strangely simple, perhaps even mundane...but if you're paying close attention, there are all kinds of deep insights and tantalizing clues strewn throughout those books.

There's more to it though. In The White Sands Incident Fry notes that when he asks a question of the speaker, he receives an answer in a novel and compelling manner: the proof of the veracity of the answer, is built into the answer, eliminating all doubt that the statements are both correct and factual. That singular dynamic is found throughout the two science books. In fact it's so compelling and persuasive that I've adopted that methodology in my online discourses - whenever possible I endeavor to state my position and then back it up with the evidence and logic that convinces me that it's true. That way the reader can see an X-ray of my thought process and confront the same data that convinced me to adopt the position that I hold. It is quite simply the most logical and compelling strategy for communicating with others, that I've ever encountered. And we only find this style of communication within The White Sands Incident when A'lan is answering one of Fry's questions, and throughout both of the science books published under his name.

Furthermore, as ChrisIB also noticed, the voice we hear in the two science books very palpably comes across as someone who 1.) already knows the answers to the gigantic theoretical physics concepts that are loosely sketched out in those books, and 2.) seems to be chiding us (i.e.humans) a bit for failing to put together the pieces of the puzzle (i.e. a genuine grand unified field theory) because, apparently, we already have all of the clues we need in order to figure it out. So the two books on physics appear to be a kind of helping hand to highlight the key scientific data points required to formulate the correct unified field theory.

And the way this is done is breath-taking. The writer appears to be confined to using information that we either already know, or information that we could have known based on the existing scientific data, in order to pave a road for us to arrive at the correct model of physics - a unified field theory that will allow us to engineer a gravitational field propulsion device so we too can conduct rapid manned interstellar missions.

But in my view the most startling aspect of these books is the manner in which some of the most sophisticated concepts in special relativity and general relativity and gravitational field propulsion (which wasn't elucidated in the academic literature for another 42 years following the publication of these books), are conveyed with a simplicity and elegance so masterful that anyone reading them can understand them immediately and intuitively without employing mathematical equations to do it - the ideas in those books are all explained with simple and sensible heuristic tools. Like I said - I've only seen that kind of mastery with these kinds of concepts in the writings of our greatest minds, like Einstein and Heisenberg and Feynman. Daniel Fry was a very proficient scientific mind, but he wasn't at that level.

The author of those two books, however, was.

So I don't know who wrote them. It seems to me that these two books were probably either written by some genius scientist working within the US military black budget research programs and Fry created the alien contact story to establish a cover story for that writer so the info could be offered to the public, or they were written by some alien intelligence, and then published under Daniel Fry's name.

The fact that two such books written by an alleged alien contactee are more relevant and compelling today, than they were 60 years ago when they were published, should give anyone pause. I'm certainly mystified by all of this, and that delights me - I don't know what's going on here, but I see a raft of solid reasons to take it all very seriously. And at every turn, that approach has been vindicated by the march of scientific progress. The exact opposite has been true of every other contactee case that I've looked into - at best the other accounts read as quaint fiction which got easier to disprove every year as science advanced. These books however have only gotten more contemporary and scientifically relevant with every decade.

I've never seen that before. This is a genuine anomaly.
I have read on one breath.
P.S. O my God, there are 12 of them! Why are there so many?
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Dejan Corovic, I see you're stubbornly repeating the word "epilepsy".

Very simple. Because I don't want a cheat to take it away from me.

Lets say we are all competing in a fair play, but than comes a cheat. You send judge to check on their cheating, but cheat says to judge "don't touch that" that's "sacred". Now cheat is free to eat my lunch every day just by declaring everything he wants as "sacred". Like when George Bush said he "had a message from a God", he would had been able to bypass constitution scot free.

But, cheating can be caught. So there is a subtler way. You simply say "I strongly believe". Now, by voluntarily being delusional you can again eat other man's launch without putting shoulder to the proverbial common wheel.

Science is simply a way to flush out cheats and delusional.

So, how about instead of making this or that "sacred", showing some repeated experiments, independent measurements and scientific papers.

Just to make it clear, here is nothing wrong with being epileptic. I have a friend who is and she is perfectly normal person, very funny and friendly. I wouldn't want anybody to take anything from her, but if she talked about "visions" I wouldn't take them as real in any sense.
 
Last edited:

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Quantum physics must be God's gift to pseudoscience.

Just listened to a Howard Hughes Unexplained interview with Anthony Peake - and why I felt like making this post.

Never heard of him either but he's talking about consciousness, the paranormal, his Ultraterrestrial or non-ETH theories. All fine and well and good enough background entertainment while I'm working on something. He serves as a specific example of people who will casually reference quantum physics as containing all the answers - make it a convenient catch all. Well, I suppose from one p.o.v it literally does explain everything (or will eventually) but lately it's become all too common to put forth some notion, speak some technical sounding words that may or may not even be understood by those using them, and then point to quantum physics as the sparkly cloud full of unicorns and faeries and the answers to everything. Sells his books and pays his bills so I guess any truth or accuracy behind it it is secondary.

Not related to Fry. Just an observation.
 
Last edited:

1963

Noble
Quantum physics must be God's gift to pseudoscience.

Just listened to a Howard Hughes Unexplained interview with Anthony Peake - and why I felt like making this post.

Never heard of him either but he's talking about consciousness, the paranormal, his Ultraterrestrial or non-ETH theories. All fine and well and good enough background entertainment while I'm working on something. He serves as a specific example of people who will casually reference quantum physics as containing all the answers - make it a convenient catch all. Well, I suppose from one p.o.v it literally does explain everything (or will eventually) but lately it's become all too common to put forth some notion, speak some technical sounding words that may or may not even be understood by those using them, and then point to quantum physics as the sparkly cloud full of unicorns and faeries and the answers to everything. Sells his books and pays his bills so I guess any truth or accuracy behind it it is secondary.

Not related to Fry. Just an observation.
A brilliant one too PF,... and one that I very much agree with mate. :Thumbsup:

Cheers Buddy.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Transparent metals actually occur during nuclear explosions. Out of all the places, I found a testimony of US Air Force pilot who was tasked, together with his commanding officer, to observe a nuclear test from a distance of 10 miles. He described how body of the aeroplane they were flying became transparent during the nuke's explosion and that he was able to see the desert floor through the floor of his cockpit. That was from a book "The Spirit of Attack: Fighter Pilot Stories " by Bruce Gordon.

Cool.

“Finally, the time was near to time zero, and we were right on the prescribed orbit and location. I was flying the plane, and as I said, I had put the patch over my left eye and was to be looking down, with my head down, into the cockpit. As the time was counted down to zero, I can remember that I was holding my breath as I heard 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1! Then, everything went white, I mean it was so bright you could not see the floor of the plane. Then a very odd thing happened, I could actually see through the floor of the cockpit and see the ground below us! Yes, I could see the ground THROUGH the floor of the plane. I also could see a bright light even in the eye over which I had the patch. I find it hard to describe the brightness of the bomb blast. It was not like anything I had ever seen. It was, very much like how I had envisioned that the brightness one would experience if in the presence of God.”

— The Spirit of Attack: Fighter Pilot Stories by Bruce Gordon

That was one of the men that contributed to the book.

My favorite anecdote from Gordon was him being way up north in an interceptor squadron. He described being disoriented, the horrible conditions they had to fly in. He realized one night as he was in a steep dive that he was in the wrong place and pulled up for all he was worth going God knows how fast and he said he looked UP out of his cockpit to see a man sitting on the second floor of his home reading the paper.

:shocked:
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Cool.

“Finally, the time was near to time zero, and we were right on the prescribed orbit and location. I was flying the plane, and as I said, I had put the patch over my left eye and was to be looking down, with my head down, into the cockpit. As the time was counted down to zero, I can remember that I was holding my breath as I heard 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1! Then, everything went white, I mean it was so bright you could not see the floor of the plane. Then a very odd thing happened, I could actually see through the floor of the cockpit and see the ground below us! Yes, I could see the ground THROUGH the floor of the plane. I also could see a bright light even in the eye over which I had the patch. I find it hard to describe the brightness of the bomb blast. It was not like anything I had ever seen. It was, very much like how I had envisioned that the brightness one would experience if in the presence of God.”

— The Spirit of Attack: Fighter Pilot Stories by Bruce Gordon

That was one of the men that contributed to the book.

My favorite anecdote from Gordon was him being way up north in an interceptor squadron. He described being disoriented, the horrible conditions they had to fly in. He realized one night as he was in a steep dive that he was in the wrong place and pulled up for all he was worth going God knows how fast and he said he looked UP out of his cockpit to see a man sitting on the second floor of his home reading the paper.

:shocked:

That is the essential paragraph. Many UFO witnesses report walls of UFO being transparent when looked from inside. That report gives them credibility.
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable

Freaky. Honestly I am too scared to have any haunted things in here. Already sleep bad at night cause of a vision of a dead person walking over my bed each night. Seems to be from ww2. Loved to do evil. iiik. It is luckly just vision and not physical there.

Well. that is not alien contactee. That is ghost contactee.


I was just cruising this thread looking for something specif and I've gone past that creepy doll several times now. Jeez that thing gives me the willies.

Twist the head off, bury the parts separately near running water and make sure to speak some ancient and obscure Scandinavian incantation over the spot. That should take care of it - nothing bad could possibly happen after that, right?
 

Ida G

Honorable
I was just cruising this thread looking for something specif and I've gone past that creepy doll several times now. Jeez that thing gives me the willies.

Twist the head off, bury the parts separately near running water and make sure to speak some ancient and obscure Scandinavian incantation over the spot. That should take care of it - nothing bad could possibly happen after that, right?

Do you think it is real? why is it haunted? Why is there so little information about the story of the dolls? It seems real to my. My washing machine was on one day I came home. It was monday? or Tuesday?. I do not use the washing machine. No one comes in here either. I have started to film ( with laptop - no night vision and limit time ) the door when walking out to see if anyone walks in without my knowledge. The time the washing machine was on there were no filming unfortunately.
Well. Cause of personal experiences it could be real. Do not know.
Dolls have such sensitive energy around them. Love, hate, loss, despair. Any emotional memories could be attached to them.

I have not started to film any haunted items much yet cause the camera I got needs the mobile phone to function and I am walking out and at night it stops by it self and such. Would be better if it worked on the computer, then anyone could get permission to follow any haunted object live. :D
 

pigfarmer

tall, thin, irritable
Do you think it is real? why is it haunted? Why is there so little information about the story of the dolls? It seems real to my. My washing machine was on one day I came home. It was monday? or Tuesday?. I do not use the washing machine. No one comes in here either. I have started to film ( with laptop - no night vision and limit time ) the door when walking out to see if anyone walks in without my knowledge. The time the washing machine was on there were no filming unfortunately.
Well. Cause of personal experiences it could be real. Do not know.
Dolls have such sensitive energy around them. Love, hate, loss, despair. Any emotional memories could be attached to them.

I have not started to film any haunted items much yet cause the camera I got needs the mobile phone to function and I am walking out and at night it stops by it self and such. Would be better if it worked on the computer, then anyone could get permission to follow any haunted object live. :D

@Ida G I thought this topic might deserve its own thread: haunted objects
 

ChrisIB

Honorable
And in the 1950s when Fry wrote his books, the idea of a negative pole of gravitation, "antigravity," was considered by the academic physics establishment to be a laughable
Find it interesting they were written just after Einstein died. Might that have been deliberate? and what might it suggest?
 

Dejan Corovic

As above, so bellow
Yeah, the best video on ESP, premonition and remote viewing. It's nice to hear it from scientists themselves. Scientific evidence is there, so it is not anymore a question does it work, but how it works:

 
Find it interesting they were written just after Einstein died. Might that have been deliberate? and what might it suggest?
I corresponded with Sean Donovan at length during the time he was writing Daniel Fry's biography, and I volunteered a month of my life to edit the final manuscript (I haven't checked to see if the published edition includes my edits though), and as far as I can recall, there was no indication that Einstein corresponded with Fry. I see no empirical reason to connect the two events, so as an empiricist I'm bound to find them uncorrelated. But I'm always open to a change of view if I see any evidence which points to a connection. In fairness though, I find it hard to imagine that if Einstein had completed his work on a unified field theory and found convincing evidence of the dark energy effect before he died, he wouldn't have published it in the academic literature - he published all of his other ground-breaking discoveries.
 

Ida G

Honorable
Sorry for interrupting you with but I bought this book that I was going to have under hidden camera.
And Yes! It is haunted.
If I am too scared anyone can have Deus Irae anyway cause me too scared to have it. Shivering.

I was going to the shower and suddenly while in shower something looking like a rat just runs straight into the wall.
This means some of the youtube videos is true and not Hoax!

Hurray! :D

Tonight i hardly dare to sleep. Scared. Very scared.
(It is also posted in haunted objects thread - but i thought you could be interested here too )
 

Attachments

  • sos.mp4
    7.5 MB · Views: 151
Top