James DeMeo's OBRL-News Blog

Dear Mr. F.,

...

I've extensively researched the subject of Einstein's views as regarding anything which might approximate the life-energy of Reich.  As you may know, Reich and Einstein met and discussed the To-T experiment (thermal anomaly in the orgone accumulator) which Einstein firstly became fascinated about, sufficient to run an experiment -- but he was no experimental scientist, and this might have been one of the few that he ever attempted.  While he called the orgone energy "a bomb in physics" because he understood it would destroy much of existing theory, Einstein must have finally understood it would also obliterate his own relativity theory.   So Einstein finally rejected Reich's views entirely.  The issue about the To-T experiment, Einstein was totally wrong about, and Reich totally correct.  You can review the latest issue of the OBRL Newsletter for details about my own experimental verifications of the To-T experiment, here:

http://www.orgonelab.org/OBRLNewsletter.htm

But there are several earlier historical episodes which indicate Einstein was totally against anything that could be interpreted as evidence of a material ether in space, that space could not have any kind of tangible structure to it, and so the "wave" phenomenon had to be created by some other principle -- according to Einstein.  Perhaps you have seen his book or paper "Relativity and the Ether" wherein he states a medium in space is not incompatible with relativity theory, but only if it has no material properties, and remains only an abstraction!  Otherwise, a material-tangible ether would affect light-speed and yield up variations depending upon the motion of the source and the observer, which is forbidden in his theory.  The other aspect of this is even more important as it is empirical science and not merely theoretical.  And that is the issue of experimental detection of an ether and ether-drift.  This HAS been accomplished many times, including by Albert Michelson, but the history of it has basically been distorted and excluded from open discussion, almost as badly as the works of Reich have been excluded and suppressed.

For evidence on this latter concern, I would point you to my papers on the ether question, which summarize the evidence:

"Dayton Miller's Ether Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look"

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

"A Dynamic and Substantive Cosmological Ether"

http://www.orgonelab.org/DynamicEther.pdf

Both of these papers, together, discuss the positive evidence for ether and ether-drift, integrating that evidence with Reich's theory of Cosmic Superimposition, and also showing the identity of properties of the Miller-type of entrainable material ether to Reich's orgone energy (both are metal-reflectable, influenced by density of matter, having quasi-electrical properties, figure dominantly in the phenomenon of light, etc.)  In my view, the modern term "dark matter" is one and the same phenomenon, and we are currently undertaking experiments with orgone-charged Geiger-Muller counters and NaI(Tl) scintillation counters which are typically used in "dark matter" experiments.  They yield up a greater activity in keeping with "increased dark matter density" (eg, orgone energy) inside the orgone accumulator.

Also see the various paper reprints here:

http://www.orgonelab.org/energyinspace.htm

I am personally somewhat skeptical of all the talk about photons and today believe much of the photon evidence is in fact evidence of wave effects.  The double-slit experiments in particular may be easily explained as wave effects creating accumulated tensions within the crystal lattices of the film emulsions, or within PM tubes or CCD pixels, thereafter yielding up threshold effects which are misinterpreted as "particles".  The calcite crystal experiments suggestive of "instant communication" between "separate particles" also may merely be the consequence of light-waves being split into mirror-image curling wave-vortices by the crystals -- much like a ship produces two nearly-identical but oppositely spinning wave-curls on opposing sides of its bow (or, as does a plow moving through fresh moist soil) thereby yielding misperceived "particles" at opposing distance detectors with "opposing properties".  This has nothing to do with a "cosmic consciousness" or anything similar which demands "instant communication" between the independent particles.  It is merely the result of the wave-train produced inside the calcite crystal at the time the light-beam is split into two identical but opposite-vortex components within independent light-waves, with the subsequent transmission of those wave properties by the ether, in which the light-waves and experimental apparatus are submerged.  And so on.

It could be, my view is in keeping with your ideas.  Or, they could be entirely at odds.  I cannot say, but do know both Reich's discoveries on the tangible and material orgone, and those of Miller and others on the tangible and material ether in space, are accurate by reproducible experimental proofs, even if those proofs have a long history of being totally ignored or misrepresented by mainstream science publications.  Both Miller and Reich described the mostions and orientations of the Earth in space, relative to this material and substantive energy continuua, and the spiral-form motion of Earth through space (as it moves around the Sun) is critical to any understanding of the relationships.  It therefore demands all honest science to embrace the experimental facts and adjust their theoretical ideas accordingly.  The general trend has been, unfortunately, to try and "make the ether immaterial" by declaration alone, and ignoring of the positive evidence for its material and substantive nature.  And to declare "orgone energy does not exist", or alternatively to declare without evidence, that the orgone energy is a metaphysical principle also devoid of properties and substance.   Both declarations serve the function to obliterate out the intensive nature and experience of life, and to render down the cosmos into a sterile vacuous nothing.

I hope some of this helps.  If you are not on our OBRL-Quarterly Newsletter list, consider subscribing.  See here:

http://www.orgonelab.org/OBRLNewsletter.htm

Also make note of our 2009 Conference on New Research in Orgonomy which is mentioned in the most recent Newsletter.

Kind regards,

James DeMeo

************************

James DeMeo, Ph.D.

Orgone Biophysical Research Lab

Greensprings Center

Natural Energy Works

Ashland, Oregon, USA

e-mail:   demeo(at)mind.net

http://www.orgonelab.org

http://www.naturalenergyworks.net

http://www.saharasia.org

// posted by James DeMeo @ Saturday, September 20, 2008