Mehran Keshe and Keshe Foundation Game Changer or Scam?

[redstar]

When Keshe Foundation comes with a finished and running device I will trust in them. Until then, they are only charlatans (IMHO).

 

[Human]

I just took a look through the links provided, and it appears kind of frivolous (not very serious).
For example:

• there is not one scientifically relevant paper and all other "papers" are down because his books are on the market - if the guy really seriously worked this out, he could have almost for certain published some of it on arxiv for other people interested to check his calculations and ideas
• it appears the guy didn't really calculated anything seriously and that's why he's not showing any papers; check the report on the project _http://www.keshefoundation.org/pdfs/Prof.Van_Overmeire(VUB).pdf

Looking briefly at his schemes of neutron, they remind me very much about "quark theory" of constituents of nucleons. In addition, calling these three constituents matter, antimatter and dark matter is kind of silly, because we know how matter and antimatter interact, and dark matter for today science community is just a name for matter/antimatter that we can't easily see, i.e. that interacts in weak and/or gravitational fashion.

When a reactor creates Magrav fields it can react with the fields of the Earth or any other field which is in it's vicinity. This is how lift and flight can be done. The fields can be varied in the reactors depending on how they are set up and used. If the gravitational part of the field is made stronger it will cause increased weight of the area it covers and be more strongly attracted to other gravitational fields nearby, and if the magnetic portion of the field is made stronger it will repulse other nearby magnetic fields.

According to Mr. Keshe, this is how and why the planets have the orbits they do, because there is a balance point at a specific distance where the magnetical and gravitational fields are equal.

I don't quite understand the above bolded part.
How can one increase the gravitational field except to add mass (which in a sense is already there if looking at the whole planet), and AFAIK (magnetic) fields by themselves are neither repulsive nor attractive, forces are, and magnetic force can be both, depending on the material and flux of electric charge.
In this context, I see a gravity-magnetism planetary balance as an extremely non-equilibrium one, because one object could easily "flip" it's magnetic orientation and magnetic repulsion would thus become magnetic attraction.

 

[Sol Logos]

It doesn't appear to be as it seems they are talking about different things while using the same terms, which do not apply in different contexts and systems because the words often have different meanings.

So would I be right to say that Magrav fields are gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields in certain contexts but in other contexts they are not?

 

[sitting]

I have been for a while now following the scientific and technological progress of the Keshe Foundation, initiated about ten years ago by Mehran Keshe...

It is now beyond any doubt that the technology is valid and can do what it is claimed it is possible to do with it.

Hello Richard,

Let me pose this simple question if I may.

Your assertion above, is it based on actual observation of such devices? If not, is it derived from your detail comprehension of the physics of such processes? And again if not, is it then based on the "reasonableness" of its description? And lastly if not, is it primarily founded on faith?

It's important you not misconstrue the purpose of my question. Nor my intention. I believe that line of questioning is relevant to much of what we assume to be true--myself included.

My own observation is that often our beliefs are formed by a combination of all of the above.

 

[trendsetter37]

Richard S, you mention that the static reactor can transform gaseous CO2 into liquid at room temperature and regular pressure. Do I have that right? In other words the liquid CO2 that is created is still at room temperatures and not cold to the touch or does not cause condensation/ice crystals on the container. If I am understanding my conventional training correctly you cannot have liquid CO2 on earth's surface without one of two constraints.

One being the fact that you must lower the temperature to a certain point to condense the gas into its liquid form or you increase the pressure to a value where the gaseous CO2 is condensed into a liquid form. I am thinking that maybe if you had an artificial gravity field that only affects the CO2 then maybe you can accumulate 'room temperature' liquid. But that would have to be a requirement. Maybe he is on to something there with the theory he is promulgating.

How long does this liquid state last (I will look through youtube today as these questions may already be answered)? Is it longer than conventionally cooled carbon dioxide gas that has turned to liquid? Because that stuff boils at ambient room temperature making it hard to analyze. If not and it remains in a liquid state for at least 24 hrs then that's something!

I did some preliminary digging yesterday but I will look into the CO2 generator today because that IS something I can test using IR to ensure that the substance in question is in fact CO2.

Edit:Well I found this _http://keshefoundation.org/applications/energy/power-cells/83-keshe-power-cells-en and that is a little compelling but the paper he wrote detailing everything isn't downloadable '404 error'...

 

[Richs]

I just took a look through the links provided, and it appears kind of frivolous (not very serious).
For example:

• there is not one scientifically relevant paper and all other "papers" are down because his books are on the market - if the guy really seriously worked this out, he could have almost for certain published some of it on arxiv for other people interested to check his calculations and ideas
• it appears the guy didn't really calculated anything seriously and that's why he's not showing any papers; check the report on the project _http://www.keshefoundation.org/pdfs/Prof.Van_Overmeire(VUB).pdf

He states that he is not really interested in convincing the 'scientific community' regarding his science and technology, as they would only accept his ideas after working devices were on the market - just as we all are here.

Also, when he did submit an article to a scientific publication he says he received a rejection letter stating they would not publish it but would keep it in their files. The very next day none other than Steven Hawking, after many years of saying nothing can come out of Black Holes, came out with the idea that Black Holes 'leak energy and information', which was the very topic of Mr. Keshe's paper. He decided not to ever submit papers to scientific journals again.

Looking briefly at his schemes of neutron, they remind me very much about "quark theory" of constituents of nucleons. In addition, calling these three constituents matter, antimatter and dark matter is kind of silly, because we know how matter and antimatter interact, and dark matter for today science community is just a name for matter/antimatter that we can't easily see, i.e. that interacts in weak and/or gravitational fashion.

Again, using the same terminology for entirely different concepts is going to cause lots of confusion. The words are the same but the meanings are not.

When a reactor creates Magrav fields it can react with the fields of the Earth or any other field which is in it's vicinity. This is how lift and flight can be done. The fields can be varied in the reactors depending on how they are set up and used. If the gravitational part of the field is made stronger it will cause increased weight of the area it covers and be more strongly attracted to other gravitational fields nearby, and if the magnetic portion of the field is made stronger it will repulse other nearby magnetic fields.

According to Mr. Keshe, this is how and why the planets have the orbits they do, because there is a balance point at a specific distance where the magnetical and gravitational fields are equal.

I don't quite understand the above bolded part.
How can one increase the gravitational field except to add mass (which in a sense is already there if looking at the whole planet), and AFAIK (magnetic) fields by themselves are neither repulsive nor attractive, forces are, and magnetic force can be both, depending on the material and flux of electric charge.
In this context, I see a gravity-magnetism planetary balance as an extremely non-equilibrium one, because one object could easily "flip" it's magnetic orientation and magnetic repulsion would thus become magnetic attraction.

You are thinking of how common bar magnets interact and this does not apply to the fields mentioned. Actually there are combinations of spherical magnets that operate so as to keep each other at a specific distance. Mr. Keshe has demonstrated this in one of his videos.

 

[Richs]

It doesn't appear to be as it seems they are talking about different things while using the same terms, which do not apply in different contexts and systems because the words often have different meanings.

So would I be right to say that Magrav fields are gravitational fields and electromagnetic fields in certain contexts but in other contexts they are not?

Sorry if you are confused, but what I meant is that using the same words to describe different concepts which are not the same causes confusion. Standard science does not recognize Magravs in the way Mr. Keshe describes them.

 

[Richs]

I have been for a while now following the scientific and technological progress of the Keshe Foundation, initiated about ten years ago by Mehran Keshe...

It is now beyond any doubt that the technology is valid and can do what it is claimed it is possible to do with it.

Hello Richard,

Let me pose this simple question if I may.

Your assertion above, is it based on actual observation of such devices? If not, is it derived from your detail comprehension of the physics of such processes? And again if not, is it then based on the "reasonableness" of its description? And lastly if not, is it primarily founded on faith?

It's important you not misconstrue the purpose of my question. Nor my intention. I believe that line of questioning is relevant to much of what we assume to be true--myself included.

My own observation is that often our beliefs are formed by a combination of all of the above.

It's not only alright but very appropriate to ask these questions.

I am not a physicist, although I try to learn as much about science as I can as a layman, so what I can understand about this seems valid and consistent overall. To further my understanding of Mr. Keshe's science I have bought and read the books available and what is described there seems also consistent and reasonable to me, even if it is radically different than what is generally accepted by the 'scientific community'.

I have followed this for over a year and have watched many of the workshops, where there have been many devices constructed and demonstrated online in these workshops, where the principles of their operation were provided.

I do my best to remain objective in my view of the world around me and have worked hard over the years to eliminate belief systems to the extent I can. I usually assign levels of probability as to whether something is 'true' or 'not true'.

So, I do not "believe" that this science and technology is true, but I assign a very high probability that it is. Not 100%, but maybe 96% to 97%.

It is also fairly clear to me that no fake charlatan with a pseudo science could attract so many acadamicians, scientists and governments as he has, so this is another point which appears to validate what he claims is so.

And, like many others here, I am waiting and watching to see if it indeed comes to fruition or not.

 

[Richs]

Richard S, you mention that the static reactor can transform gaseous CO2 into liquid at room temperature and regular pressure. Do I have that right? In other words the liquid CO2 that is created is still at room temperatures and not cold to the touch or does not cause condensation/ice crystals on the container. If I am understanding my conventional training correctly you cannot have liquid CO2 on earth's surface without one of two constraints.

Yes, you have it exactly right. The CO2 absorbed is a liquid at room temperature and pressure. As I mentioned somewhere previously, the CO2 becomes a GANS, which means GAs in Nano State. Since it is now in a different state than it was before it has different properties than originally.

When you think about it in this way you can realize that your own flesh is in a GANS state too. We are mostly made of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen, which are normally in a gaseous state, but are somehow converted to a different state in our bodies.

This why there are applications to health with this technology. Our bodies and their structures and organs also respond to plasmatic fields because they are in this GANS state.

One being the fact that you must lower the temperature to a certain point to condense the gas into its liquid form or you increase the pressure to a value where the gaseous CO2 is condensed into a liquid form. I am thinking that maybe if you had an artificial gravity field that only affects the CO2 then maybe you can accumulate 'room temperature' liquid. But that would have to be a requirement. Maybe he is on to something there with the theory he is promulgating.

The device which gives the liquid CO2 creates a plasmatic field which is what does the converting of the gas to the liquid GANS state. By using different materials to make the device you can also accumulate liquid ammonia (CH3) and other materials.

How long does this liquid state last (I will look through youtube today as these questions may already be answered)? Is it longer than conventionally cooled carbon dioxide gas that has turned to liquid? Because that stuff boils at ambient room temperature making it hard to analyze. If not and it remains in a liquid state for at least 24 hrs then that's something!

The liquid CO2 lasts permanently. You can store it in jars for later use in whatever way you might want, or just to look at. It can also be left open in a shallow pan to dry into a powder, so you would then have solid CO2 at room temperature.

I did some preliminary digging yesterday but I will look into the CO2 generator today because that IS something I can test using IR to ensure that the substance in question is in fact CO2.

I'm not sure what results you will get because the CO2 would be in a different form than it normally would be, but it would be worth a try.

Edit:Well I found this _http://keshefoundation.org/applications/energy/power-cells/83-keshe-power-cells-en and that is a little compelling but the paper he wrote detailing everything isn't downloadable '404 error'...

 

[sitting]

I do my best to remain objective in my view of the world around me and have worked hard over the years to eliminate belief systems to the extent I can. I usually assign levels of probability as to whether something is 'true' or 'not true'.

Hi Richard,

I think that's a very good approach, and thank you for your reply.

 

[Richs]

I do my best to remain objective in my view of the world around me and have worked hard over the years to eliminate belief systems to the extent I can. I usually assign levels of probability as to whether something is 'true' or 'not true'.

Hi Richard,

I think that's a very good approach, and thank you for your reply.

You are certainly welcome! I should also add that I understand well that any of us can be fooled by disinformation and the many fakers and charlatans out there. That is why I have spent so much time and effort to begin to understand this topic as much as I am able.

What really prompted me to bring up this topic here was the complete lack of even any sort of hint or mention about it, not only from the mainstream, but even from many of the 'alternative' sites as far as I know. You would think this would be 'Earth shattering news' even if the science and technology is not yet proven by having usable devices in production and on store shelves. The only place I have seen this mentioned is at Peswiki with some articles and mention such as this: http://pesn.com/2011/04/06/9501804_Engineer_Behind_Iranian_Saucer_Technology_Comes_Forward/
This article was written some time ago and does not reflect the current situation of the Keshe Foundation university (the Space Institute) or any of the recent developments in many areas. However, it is a good read and probably explains better what this technology is and does than I have been able to.

Since governments have been handed all the patents for about a year now and nothing is being done it appears Mr. Keshe is bypassing them since they have had their chance and is now putting the info and products directly into the hands of the people.

 

[Joe]

It is also fairly clear to me that no fake charlatan with a pseudo science could attract so many acadamicians, scientists and governments as he has, so this is another point which appears to validate what he claims is so.

I think this is a wrong assumption. There are many scientists who have been taken in by charlatans and/or don't even know they are associated with one. As for governments, I'd have thought you would know better than to trust their intentions.

 

[Human]

Richard S, you mention that the static reactor can transform gaseous CO2 into liquid at room temperature and regular pressure. Do I have that right? In other words the liquid CO2 that is created is still at room temperatures and not cold to the touch or does not cause condensation/ice crystals on the container. If I am understanding my conventional training correctly you cannot have liquid CO2 on earth's surface without one of two constraints.

Yes, you have it exactly right. The CO2 absorbed is a liquid at room temperature and pressure. As I mentioned somewhere previously, the CO2 becomes a GANS, which means GAs in Nano State. Since it is now in a different state than it was before it has different properties than originally.

When you think about it in this way you can realize that your own flesh is in a GANS state too. We are mostly made of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen, which are normally in a gaseous state, but are somehow converted to a different state in our bodies.

This why there are applications to health with this technology. Our bodies and their structures and organs also respond to plasmatic fields because they are in this GANS state.

One being the fact that you must lower the temperature to a certain point to condense the gas into its liquid form or you increase the pressure to a value where the gaseous CO2 is condensed into a liquid form. I am thinking that maybe if you had an artificial gravity field that only affects the CO2 then maybe you can accumulate 'room temperature' liquid. But that would have to be a requirement. Maybe he is on to something there with the theory he is promulgating.

The device which gives the liquid CO2 creates a plasmatic field which is what does the converting of the gas to the liquid GANS state. By using different materials to make the device you can also accumulate liquid ammonia (CH3) and other materials.

How long does this liquid state last (I will look through youtube today as these questions may already be answered)? Is it longer than conventionally cooled carbon dioxide gas that has turned to liquid? Because that stuff boils at ambient room temperature making it hard to analyze. If not and it remains in a liquid state for at least 24 hrs then that's something!

The liquid CO2 lasts permanently. You can store it in jars for later use in whatever way you might want, or just to look at. It can also be left open in a shallow pan to dry into a powder, so you would then have solid CO2 at room temperature.

I did some preliminary digging yesterday but I will look into the CO2 generator today because that IS something I can test using IR to ensure that the substance in question is in fact CO2.

I'm not sure what results you will get because the CO2 would be in a different form than it normally would be, but it would be worth a try.

I'm really puzzled with all of this. It contradicts about everything that I think I know about physical chemistry (in gravitational field of planet Earth).

OK, addressing the bolded parts above.

If we strip the composition of our bodies to atoms (C, H, O, N, ...), we might as well do it a step further and go directly to level of electrons and nucleons, or even quarks (although nobody yet saw a "free" quark), FWIW.
AFAIK, from chemical POW our body is made of molecules and from biological POW from cells (simplified). And Carbon at room temperature is in a solid aggregate state (graphite, diamond, amorphous), not gas. Those atoms appear in different state in our body because they are bond into molecules of various different compounds, which each can have very different properties. I mean, there are really not free atoms in our body (most of them anyway).
In addition, wouldn't that GANS state be easily visible with many various methods and technology used in modern medicine nowadays?

CO2 is really always just that, CO2. If it remains its chemical composition (meaning it's CO2 and not some other "material") it doesn't matter which aggregate state it is in, i.e. how we arrange molecules in space. Solid carbon-dioxide is usually referred to as dry ice also, and used in making those mists on stage because it evaporates (directly goes from solid to gas) at room temperature. Check its phase diagram _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
If it really is carbon-dioxide, IR excitation would revealed its characteristic spectral lines. Changing aggregate state doesn't change chemical composition, at least that's what I've learned and experienced.

BTW, did you tried making that liquid CO2 at room temperature and checked what it is (both liquid and that solid powder)? I mean, no pun intended, but it could easily be just plain water with some CaCO2 in it (which is pretty common for crass region for example, where I come from) which stays as whitish powder on the glass/pan after water evaporates.
I'd think it would be pretty simple to check some basic characteristics of a liquid, like PH value, electrical resistance and conductivity, even if exact chemical composition could not be easily determined.

 

[Richs]

It is also fairly clear to me that no fake charlatan with a pseudo science could attract so many acadamicians, scientists and governments as he has, so this is another point which appears to validate what he claims is so.

I think this is a wrong assumption. There are many scientists who have been taken in by charlatans and/or don't even know they are associated with one. As for governments, I'd have thought you would know better than to trust their intentions.

Well, you may be right there, but there seems to be a lot of interest by government people and scientists from all over the world. I for sure do not trust their intentions, just that they are interested.

 

[Richs]

Richard S, you mention that the static reactor can transform gaseous CO2 into liquid at room temperature and regular pressure. Do I have that right? In other words the liquid CO2 that is created is still at room temperatures and not cold to the touch or does not cause condensation/ice crystals on the container. If I am understanding my conventional training correctly you cannot have liquid CO2 on earth's surface without one of two constraints.

Yes, you have it exactly right. The CO2 absorbed is a liquid at room temperature and pressure. As I mentioned somewhere previously, the CO2 becomes a GANS, which means GAs in Nano State. Since it is now in a different state than it was before it has different properties than originally.

When you think about it in this way you can realize that your own flesh is in a GANS state too. We are mostly made of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen, which are normally in a gaseous state, but are somehow converted to a different state in our bodies.

This why there are applications to health with this technology. Our bodies and their structures and organs also respond to plasmatic fields because they are in this GANS state.

One being the fact that you must lower the temperature to a certain point to condense the gas into its liquid form or you increase the pressure to a value where the gaseous CO2 is condensed into a liquid form. I am thinking that maybe if you had an artificial gravity field that only affects the CO2 then maybe you can accumulate 'room temperature' liquid. But that would have to be a requirement. Maybe he is on to something there with the theory he is promulgating.

The device which gives the liquid CO2 creates a plasmatic field which is what does the converting of the gas to the liquid GANS state. By using different materials to make the device you can also accumulate liquid ammonia (CH3) and other materials.

How long does this liquid state last (I will look through youtube today as these questions may already be answered)? Is it longer than conventionally cooled carbon dioxide gas that has turned to liquid? Because that stuff boils at ambient room temperature making it hard to analyze. If not and it remains in a liquid state for at least 24 hrs then that's something!

The liquid CO2 lasts permanently. You can store it in jars for later use in whatever way you might want, or just to look at. It can also be left open in a shallow pan to dry into a powder, so you would then have solid CO2 at room temperature.

I did some preliminary digging yesterday but I will look into the CO2 generator today because that IS something I can test using IR to ensure that the substance in question is in fact CO2.

I'm not sure what results you will get because the CO2 would be in a different form than it normally would be, but it would be worth a try.

I'm really puzzled with all of this. It contradicts about everything that I think I know about physical chemistry (in gravitational field of planet Earth).

Yes it does doesn't it? I understand how difficult it is to grasp these concepts. It took me quite a while to get my mind wrapped around them. Look at it this way, as an addition to what we currently know about these things. It doesn't change the way chemistry as we know it works, rather it expands our knowledge base of how things are really put together. Hope that makes sense.

OK, addressing the bolded parts above.

If we strip the composition of our bodies to atoms (C, H, O, N, ...), we might as well do it a step further and go directly to level of electrons and nucleons, or even quarks (although nobody yet saw a "free" quark), FWIW.

I did not say we strip our bodies to elements, but that these 4 elements are the basic building blocks of our bodies. Certainly they are in composition molecular form and not the elemental form.

AFAIK, from chemical POW our body is made of molecules and from biological POW from cells (simplified). And Carbon at room temperature is in a solid aggregate state (graphite, diamond, amorphous), not gas.

Yeah, that got me at one point, but when it is in molecules of our bodies Carbon is not in any of the above forms. We eat plants which have already converted the CO2 into a biologically available form and when we eat animals they have consumed plants or other animals which already have the biologically available form of Carbon in them.

Those atoms appear in different state in our body because they are bond into molecules of various different compounds, which each can have very different properties. I mean, there are really not free atoms in our body (most of them anyway).
In addition, wouldn't that GANS state be easily visible with many various methods and technology used in modern medicine nowadays?

Sure, but no one has recognized it as such it seems. Pinch your skin. That is the GANS state.

CO2 is really always just that, CO2. If it remains its chemical composition (meaning it's CO2 and not some other "material") it doesn't matter which aggregate state it is in, i.e. how we arrange molecules in space. Solid carbon-dioxide is usually referred to as dry ice also, and used in making those mists on stage because it evaporates (directly goes from solid to gas) at room temperature. Check its phase diagram _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

I'm familiar with the phases of Carbon Dioxide, but they do not apply to this material when it is in the form of GANS, which I have mentioned is Gas in Nano State. This is why it can be a liquid at room temperature and pressure.

If it really is carbon-dioxide, IR excitation would revealed its characteristic spectral lines. Changing aggregate state doesn't change chemical composition, at least that's what I've learned and experienced.

BTW, did you tried making that liquid CO2 at room temperature and checked what it is (both liquid and that solid powder)? I mean, no pun intended, but it could easily be just plain water with some CaCO2 in it (which is pretty common for crass region for example, where I come from) which stays as whitish powder on the glass/pan after water evaporates.
I'd think it would be pretty simple to check some basic characteristics of a liquid, like PH value, electrical resistance and conductivity, even if exact chemical composition could not be easily determined.

No, I have not gotten the equipment to make it myself, but many other have done so. University lab tests indicate it is really CO2 in a radically different state. Mr. Keshe has shown in one of his video presentations the lab report which confirms this.