Arkadiusz Jadczyk Guestbook

Note August 14,1999: Today I re-activated this guestbook again. The entries in this guestbook dated before August 15, 1999 are from my old "Quantum Future" site in Wroclaw, and also those from the old Geocities site. The guestbook is a sort of history. We enjoy very much the comments and suggestions from our visitors, so please leave a token of your presence!

Thank you for visiting our pages. We would appreciate it if you would Add to this guestbook we are keeping! Please, leave your comment. Or leave URL of your page, so that we can pay you a visit too. Or simply sign.

http://www.concentric.net/~krischak/index2.html
or http://www.concentric.net/~krischak/index2.html
Thnx... krischak-at-concentric.net
P.S. Your site is awesome!
krischak-at-cris.com>
Silver & Gold Indies, CA USA - Thursday, June 27, 1996 at 07:57:33 (MSZ)

Lenexa, KS USA - Saturday, December 07, 1996 at 20:48:57 (MEZ)

NEW TO THESE THOUGHTS/FEEL NEED TO KNOW MORE/SEARCHING FOR TRUTH/LOVE, DEBORAH

DEBORAH <MADOUTLAW-at-AOL.COM>

ST CLOUD, FL USA - Saturday, December 14, 1996 at 14:43:48 (MEZ) I am a retired electrical engineer from IBM now interested in
the power of our mind and how it relates to matter and what
events we attract into our life. I have studied this subject
which I call manifesting and have written 2 books on it. I am
now looking at quantum physics to see what is fact, what is theory
and what is wishfull thinking. Your web pages are helping. Thanks.
Todd Varnum <manifest-at-together.net>
Burlington, VT USA - Tuesday, December 24, 1996 at 18:18:33 (MEZ)

MAGIC!

hb

USA - Thursday, January 23, 1997 at 07:33:10 (MEZ)

Name: Lance Kutchins

Comments: Greetings! Thank you for the opportunity to peruse your materials. I am particularly interested in the relationship dreams have to quantum theory (all things one, and a duality separate from this via time/space) such things as telepathy, esp, forward or reverse ime communications and such in currently metaphysical realms might be mathmatically proven. I would appreciate any direction or materials you may direct me towards. Best regards, Lance

06/28/98 18:57:09

08/09/98 23:26:12

03/15/99 21:15:59

03/18/99 21:14:51

05/05/99 12:34:12

Un bee livable, and complex, complex...I plan to visit ofen...it's like swimming through somebody elses mind, but there's nothing scary in it. Hank Harriso

Hank Harrison,

Visit Me

06/22/99 15:41:28

It is wonderful. I walked on the Geocities and has come across on your site. How do you do? In present I'm in LANL (hep-ph and physics). Regards Gunn

Gunn Quznetsov, Visit Me, Email Me

06/23/99 14:21:05

I am en polish student at Art Academy in Norway.Last year.
I was always interesting in somthing between Gurdjieff,
C.Castaneda,P.Mathiessens ,F.Carpa, G.Zukaw, M.Kaku and me.
I do not know how much I understand of what I reed ,
but I feel my Particles screem for this knowledge
My happines hed no end when I found Yours site.
I strugle to understend Something with my art. I do not
speak good English but I try my best. I wish I could reed
Yours texts in Polish. I must sey I desperately ask You
mr Arkadiusz Jadczyk to send me som text via internet
in Polish.Thise will help me with my graduating work
at Academy in Oslo. I hope this letter will find You.
Thank You ,
Jadwiga

Jadwiga B. Podowska <jadwpodo-at-khio.no>
Oslo, Norway -

Thanks for your kind words. But you really need to practice your English, You will find it extremely useful.
And, with your hunger for knowledge, it will not be difficult. Just buy a couple of books dealing with
the subjects that interest you most, that you are really hungry for, and read them. Even ONE good
book will do. Then get another one, and you will see it will all come effortlessly. Then all the
treasures of world literature and of Interenet will open to you
But, I think, I will do one thing: I will put on the web the one paper that I wrote originally in
in Polish, and that was the paper that I wrote for Sedlak symposium in Lublin. By the way, you may like
to read some books by Sedlak - they are in Polish. Sedlak was an extraordinary man! But putting this
paper on the web will take some time...

Thanks again, and Good Luck in your search for values and truth!

ark

Looking forward to more extended comments on Bearden and Hoagland in the future.
Would like to hear your opinion on the recent work of Haisch, Rueda, & Puthoff
on deriving inertia and gravity as interactions of electrons and quarks with
the zero point field. Most references on Haisch's page at the Journal of Scientific
Exploration.

Your opinions regarding parallel universe theory in relation to the statement "time
is selective and variable if you know how" would also be of interest.
Gary
USA -

Dear Gary,

After I started writing on Bearden and Hoagland, I realized that there are two excluding options: either
I spend my time fighting with nonsense and disinformation OR I use this time for my own research.
I decided to slow down with the first kind of activity, and to speed up with the second. But, as you can
see from my Phipps page I continue also with exposing nonsense. So, be patient, all will come, little
by little. Now, you want me to add also Puthoff to my list.... Well, he is on my "waiting list". But
not the first one on this list.
And as for "time selective and variable".... I am working on it.

Thanks for your entry.

ark

Suggest you may want to reprioritze your list. Papers listed at this site:

http://www.jse.com/haisch/zpf.html

include a derivation of F=ma for the electron from Maxwell's equations and
the interaction of electric charge with the zero point field. This work
deals with inertial mass as a field interaction but since inertial mass is
equivilent to gravitational mass to any order of measurement, this may be
important in terms of the frequent references to gravity in the channelled
messages.

Seemed like a linkage to me, but I'm not a physicist.

Take it for what it may be worth.

Regards
Gary
USA -

Dear Gary,

Thank you for the link. I looked into the papers refered to at this zpf site. My conclusion is: we should not try
to understand something that we do not understand in terms of something that we understand even less. It seems
to me that the zero-point energy wagon heads towards a dead-end. At least when driven by quantumelectrodynamics or stochastic electrodynamics horse. And this is what Puthoff, Haisch, Rueda and others are proposing in their published
papers. You can go there ... for a while .... and then you are stuck. But anyway: thank you for your input!

ark

Oct. 28, 1999

Response: "Anti-Gravity and the World Grid" book, with Bruce Cathie's contributions, as well as books written by this Bruce Cathie, sell for REAL money, not for "HARMONIC" or "METAPHORICAL" money. Right? But, even so, I would have nothing against it, if it would have been stated explicitly, so that everybody can see it before buying, that
"These equations are nonsensical if considered as having the same value as other equations in physics and math. They are metaphorical and harmonic and they mean nothing at all, even if I am charging for them REAL NONHARMONIC MONEY."
Then it would be OK with me. But then, of course, I would never think of buying these books!
Thank you for your input!

ark

October 31, 1999

I love this site. I have already sent a question to laura an recieved an answer. I have been looking for this all my life I knew that all the "strange" visions and feelings I have been having all my life made sense
ingrid k tulloch johnson <nktulloch-at-yahoo.com>
ny, ny USA - Nov. 12, 1999

While my understanding of physics does not extend into the mathematical arena, I am deeply interested in anything that sets out to categorize the truth. It seems to me that the further we push into the frontier of the unknown, of our own habitat, the universe or of ourselves, our bio-electrical mechanics (our soul) the less things make sense. I can find no explanation for this other than we are chasing a red herring. We are set to look in directions that will yield no answers. Think of how you would "pull the wool over the eyes" of a child in regards to something they were too young to understand. Would you not offer up a solution that holds up until it is put under careful scrutiny? And in so doing providing a growth period of maturity between the false information and the revelation of the truth? Giving the infant time to grow into a world of unpleasantries. Are we on the cusp of this maturity level, our existence no longer stands to reason, the clear and undeniable fact of our world is no longer a logical conclusion along our mathematical highway from point A (creation) to point B (crunch). {or eternal expansion I suppose}

Thus I reach my reason for truth. Its revelation will not be divined from nature in the way we imagine but received as a coming of age from out gracious misleader.

Maybe.

I am interested in your opinion of our reality and what you hope to gain in its exploration. My answer (Stolen from a well known picture) Illumination.

Matt de Rooy <Mderooy-at-pirnie.com>
New York, NY USA -

Dear Matt,
You ask me "I am interested in your opinion of our reality and what you hope to gain in its exploration. " On
my Quantum Metaphysics I am quoting from Magritte: "I am unaware of the real reason why I paint, just as I am unaware of the reason for living and dying." And then I continue explaining, even if incompletely, my own hopes. Have a look at
my Kafka page. There I am telling still more. And, I can also add, in a Kafka style: To find our mission is our mission.
In this mission we must never cease. Are we chasing a red herring? And what if have power to create? If wecreate red herrings - that is what we will get. But, perhaps, we can create something different? Perhaps we can choose, and we can
create. Perhpas we can get closer to the Truth? If there is only one chance in a billion - it is still worthwhile to pursue this direction with all strength that is given to us. As Cassiopaeans say: all is lessons. We are here to learn. And if we do not learn, we will be recycled. By learning, we HELP.
Or, using computer programmer metaphor: the program that runs our Universe has bugs in it. We are here as tiny, local, debugging units. But firts we have to debug our own programming and meta-programming. And there is long way to go. By learning our life lessons we can help our CREATOR in debugging the Universe. HE can't do it alone. But, as I said, it is a programming metaphor. Should not be taken without grain of salt. Except one thing: this is one big school and we are heare to learn. And learning can be fun.

December 10, 1999

ark

Ark, on your page _Quantum Future Physics_, you say:

"...After the crash all goes again smoothly - for a while... What is important: while the smooth evolution is predictable (although its predictions may be unreliable - like with the weather and other phenomena where prediction is sensitive to errors in the input data), the crash period, the period of catastrophe, has an inbuilt roulette mechanism. Determinism gives up, indeterminism is ruling this short time."

Now, you are saying the EEQT takes these 'crash periods' into account, while standard quantum theory does not. You seem to imply that it is within these 'crash periods' that we are able to have the most influence - that outside of these 'crash periods' things are pretty much predictable. In view of that, I'm interested to know - if there is a place for 'mind' and the influence of 'mind' in EEQT, is it specifically within and around the 'crash periods'?

Does this question make sense? I am completely unsure that it does, because I am unsure of my own understanding of what you've said in these pages. But this is the question that occured to me while reading.

Thanks,
Lisa
Lisa Gardner <lgardner-at-mbay.net>
USA -

Dear Lisa,

Truly speaking I don't know. On one hand what you say might be true. On the other hand it is also possible that just the converse is true. Namely, that mind can direct, little by little, the continuous part, and stear to this or to another "crash". Like when you are on a boat - you can choose its course while you are still in a sready stream, but when you start to enter one of the turbulent places - it is usually already too late! You have no enough power to do anything but pray and hold to the boat. But, as I said, I do know. I do not know yet, because the task of extending physics to include mind is not yet accomplished. But also, I think, one day I will know. And then I will be able to answer your question better than now. Thanks for asking,

January 4, 2000

ark

On one of the pages you comment about a Brazilian scientist
doing research on superluminal radiation. How about a more
specific reference?
Bob
Houston, TX USA -

Sure. Here is the link to the list of some of his publications. Look for the term "superluminal".
ark

Dear Bob,

Concerning your comments on EM field and torsion ... it is not that simple. But you can have a glimpse into where the research is going on by going to Alexander Frolov web site http://www.geocities.com/a2509/ and taking appropriate correction. As you will certainly notice, there is no demand for time-travel services. Frolov is offering his ervices for more than two years, but evidently nobody wants to hire him.
As for "lessons" which seem to you as "unfair" - we have already discussed this problem in our previous responses.
Sure, we are being manipulated. Yet, I am it telling myself again and again:

Those who follow that part of themselves that is great - will become great men..
Those who follow that part of themselves that is small - will become small men.
(Menzius)

 

The choice is ours. The responsibility is ours.

ark, January 18, 2000

The recent studies producing supra-lumminal beams in Italy and the USA and reported in Nature may or may not be of interest to you folks. Feinman argued very briefly in QED that the Quantum system may not recognize infinitely small interval, infinite point math. Experimentally this must be so because the QS renormalizes finitely, just as Feinman and Dyson did. R Hoagland has a nice point in indicating that the Maxwell equations were originally scalar entities. Schatzer 1998 [see his web article argues, probably correctly, that the uncertainty relation between t and the mass-energy value of any well measured accelerating correlated large system prevents this system, when Relativistically" accelerating, from being locatable at all in time. There is no way to observe - measure a real Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction event or the one way speed of light. We think a solution is to be found in Feinman's sonwhat sardonically suggested finite geometry-toplogy math and in positing finite phase spaces-dinensionalities for all Quantum mechanical processes, probably small in total dimensions etc. All of Einstein's thought experiments re light cones and trains require tachyons as measuring entities even to cognize them. Try to read the Schatzer article before you dismiss this or Alcubierre. I.e. Maxwell fields must be a set of finite structures with at most a finite set of calcuated or calculable entities.
More later.
john molloy
tucson , Az USA - Friday, July 07, 2000 at 11:05:03 (PDT)

Hmm.... "recent studies producing supra-lumminal beams" ... Do we know for sure that they produced superluminal beams? I prefer to wait and listen to the critics before jumping to conclussions. What we know is that the "superluminal signalling" is one interpretation of the results. But there are other interpretations as well. Nothing has been proven. There are ideas and conjectures.

You say "Feynman argued" ... and "this must be so...". Perhaps Feynma was right, perhaps he was was wrong. Again, I would not jump to conclusion that "this must be so". There are other options, other possibilities, other possible ways out of the infinities produced in relativistic quantum field theories. Fractal nature of space-time is one such option. Using p-adic numbers is another option. Adding dissipation is yet another option.

"There is no way to measure one-way speed of light" - you say. Again, I only partially agree. I will take two identical clocks, move one clock to the point A, another clock to the point B - and measure the speed of light. ... I know, you will argu, that how can I be sure that nothing happened to the moving clock because it was moved. So, I will say - I will take utmost care when moving - in order not to disturb the clock mechanism. ... I know, you will say that even so, how can I be sure that nothing happened to the clock, even if it was moving VERY SLOWLY.... OK, I will answer - but then there is no way to measure two way speed of light either. Since how do we know that nothing happens to the clock while it is WAITING for the signal to return? It is still moving! In TIME! So, you see, these are really complex problems that needs utmost care.

You say "Hoagland has a nice point ...". I am not sure if Hoagland has any point here - he is just repeating after Bearden. Bearden on the other hand issues statements without ever proving them. Why? I will be back to this point on my web pages dealing with Maxwell etc.

And, let me make it clear: I am not dismissing Alcubierre, and I do not say that Maxwell field is NOT discrete or finite in some sense. I am saying: we do not know yet, and there is a lot of disinformation around.

Thanks for writing - which gives me opportunity to state my views openly. My views are always open to revision - based on facts and proofs.

ark

About a decade ago, I wrote (under the penname, Daniel Eden) for the anomaly journal PURSUIT. My interest was higher spatial dimensions as they relate to fortean phenomena, apparitions, ufos, etc. My conclusion is that our 3-D world is locked out of higher space by a physical force that I termed "the barrier". This force locks us into an equilibrium state with respect to greater reality. Small perturbations of our equilibrium can cause us to vibrate in and out of our 3-D world. There is evidence that UFOs, apparitions, and normal physical objects sometimes undergo "barrier oscillation". Best reguards, Daniel Eads

danny eads
jacksonville, ark USA - Friday, October 13, 2000 at 20:53:37 (PDT)

I was wondering about you recently. Here is what I wrote to on October 4 to Peter Gersten:

Dear Mr Peter A. Gersten, In the October 3 issue of CAUS HIGHLIGHT I read: "This could explain why a UFO or an entity will appear on one frame of film but not on the next. For example, a UFO in Mexico appeared on two out of every 30 frames of film as it was hovering over a volcano. If the film speed was 30 frames per second then this object was 'barrier oscillating' at a frequency of two hertz. (...) --Danny Eads " Being a theoretical physicist (see my "Quantum Future" web pages at www.cassiopaea.com) interested in gravity research and anomalous phenomena I am curious to learn more about the research of the author of the above article. While my own research is documented in my list of publications and numerous articles available in technical journals and also on the web www.cassiopaea.com/quantum_furure/jadpub.htm - I could not find locate even publication by "Danny Eads". I would appreciate if you can help me to contact the author.

And here is his answer:

I am afraid that I no longer have his address. Peter

ark

Hello, Interesting stuff you're into "there". I wonder what you think about the sub-quantum fluctuation theory of Dr. Paul LaViolette? It sounds as though his theory extends the Heisenburg uncertainty principle to an extent that breaches the first "Law" of thermodynamics and results in the recognition that there are no closed systems. It also seems to coincide with the tenet that all is consciousness, in addition to providing an explaination for the huge Mayan and Hindu calander cycles which we are supposedly seeing the end of in the very near future. Something about his theory just "feels right", if only because it seems to allow for a lot that conventional science denies. Or is that just the old anti-authority wishfull thinking again?
Bruce
Arcata, Ca. USA - Wednesday, May 02, 2001 at 18:48:44 (PDT)

Ark: What you call a "theory" does not, in my opinion, deserve this name. (What I know is his little booklet. ) To have a theory, certain rather stringent scientific standards need to be satisfied. I would call it an "idea" rather than a theory. There are hundreds if not thousands of ideas that "feel right".

Hello, Is anybody awake there or are you all lost in dreamland? For your information MR. Jadczyk, Dr. Paul A. LaViolette recieved his B.A. in Physics from Johns Hopkins Univ., An MBA from the Univ. of Chicago, and a Phd. from Portland State Univ. He has authored several well- recieved books and written more articles and papers than I can begin to count. He was the first person to predict high-intensity volleys of cosmic ray particles from deep space; prediction confirmed. His sub-quantum kinetics theory has resulted in predictions of galactic evolution which have been confirmed by Hubble Space Telescope observations. His discovery of high concentrations of cosmic dust particles in Ice Age polar ice samples supported the thesis of galactic core explosions and have been supported by observations by the Ulyssess spacecraft and by radar installations in New Zealand. His planetary-stellar mass-luminosity relatioinships powered by spontaneous energy creation through photon blue-shifting led to the successfullprediction of the mass-luminosity of the first brown dwarf star discovered. He holds two patents on life-support rebreathing apparatus and is the President of the Starburst Foundation, an interdisciplinary research group. In January of 2000 he spoke at the American Astronomy Society in Atlanta. Afterwards, some 2/3's of the attendees said they were open to consider the evidence about galactic core super-wave explosions. Numerous independant research efforts have produced evidence which supports his work; even from scientists who didn't even KNOW of him yet. He has worked for the United Nations, the Greek government, the Club of Rome, and the Harvard School of Public Health., and is listed in the Marquis Who's Who in Science and Engineering. The web site which descibes his publications, books and many of the verifications, concordances, and successfull predictions is: etheric.com. Oh by the way Mr. Jadczyk, what are YOUR accomplishments? You mentioned that you base your cynical ridicule for Dr. LaViolette on some sort of pamphlet... is THAT what you consider an appropriate example of scientific method leading to YOUR notion of what a theory is??? How often it is that great minds face ridicule from those of tender and sensitive, need I say JEALOUS, egos?
Bruce
Ca. USA - Thursday, May 03, 2001 at 13:22:47 (PDT)

FYI, here is an extract from my email to Dr Paul La Violette:

------------------------------

Date sent: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 23:06:56 -0400

Dear Paul,
I think I will start with going again through your little book. I started to read it a year or so ago, but now I have another reason to go through it and see if I can add something to it. Absolute space/time does not worry me, as I wrote couple of papers on Newtonian/Galilei general relativity, so I know what kind of geometry it involves and how easy is to get agreement with experiments. You are right about Lorentz transformations - it is just enough to reinterpret them. Einstein relativity plus a distinguished vector field brings us back to Galilei/Newton relativity. I have some problems with consistency of your assumptions in 1.3.1, but that is not so important. What is important is how much one can get from the model. But what worries me a little bit, is your taking of "time" as given. I think we can not have a really fundamental theory without explaining "time" in some way. But that may come in some later stage. When building reaction-diffusion model on a discrete lattice (if only for a computer simulation), we can either use synchronuous updates, or asynchronous updates. In the latter case global "average time" will arrise out of independent "elementary clocks" communicating via the input/output exchange. ark

--------------------------

To which he answered that

"Dear Arkadiusz,
Regarding the two papers in the SQK book, the 1980 paper was just an oral presentation and the 1985 papers were incorporated into the book; see source notes on p. viii and ix. "

--------------------------

I proposed my help in developing SQK, but he replied that he is at present busy writing a new book. I am not undermining in any way his acomplishments. What I said is that the material presented in Subquantum Kinetics is a collection of ideas, not a THEORY. There are no other technical papers on the subject, since, as Dr La Violette wrote to me:

Date sent: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:29:35 EDT
Subject: Re: Projects.spml
Dear Arkadiusz,
Thank you for your interesting email. All of the technical papers I have published on subquantum kinetics have been combined into a book entitled Subquantum Kinetics. (...) You seem to have quite an impressive list of publications. I also found your posting about the wave interesting. It will take me a while to read through all the material.

---------------------------

Then he expressed his critical views on The Wave

"Also the 'wave. phenomenon you learned of through the Cassiopeians is different from the superwave concept and difficult to understand because of its vague description."

and also his opinion that my take on physics is too rigid:

"You seem to accept the idea of black holes, general relativity, reverse time flow, and reverse time quantum interconnectedness. These concepts are incompatible with subquantum kinetics. "

I mostly agree with his statements. With one addition only: the "Event Enhanced Quantum Theory" that I developed in a series of papers with Ph. Blanchard (notice that I am using the term "theory" here) is not assuming "reverse time quantum interconnectedness". It deals from the start with the idea that for anything to "happen" - we need to deal with open systems and with irreversible dynamics.

Back to Subquantum Kinetics: For an idea, even an iteresting one, to become a "theory" - lot of work needs to be done. Concerning Subquantum Kinetics, this work is still ahead of us.

ark

Hi Ark. where might the fastest link to the current work you are doing with time travel be? i have something i would like to share but want to review what you have done so far so i am ot repeating something
casey <isis667-at-home.com>
laguna beach , casey USA -

Ark: Even if you are repeating something something - it is still worthwhile! It is good when many people attack the same problem independently. Also, scientists do not talk about their work until they are sure that they are not on a wrong way. As you may know Faraday, before inventing the bulb, had to discover 999 ways how not to make the bulb. Thus it is quite normal for a scientist, or for an inventor, to make a working hypothesis, and to reject it when it is not working - as many times as it is necessary - until it works. Einstein, in his later years, was not, IMHO, setting a good example here by publishing his half-baked unified field theories, some with errors. But we can undertand his reason: being so famous he was under psychological pressure to produce the solution to the hardest problem of all times.

Thank you. I like most of what you have done.
UEARS DESIGN <leroy-at-reuters.ur>
Context: I arrived here by reading an article by Thomas Phipps (Axis Calibration, Infinite Energy, Vol 7, 38, 2000)which I found interesting and refreshing. From there, I sought to find his email address and so conducted a search of the internet. One of the listings took me to this site, specifically a file containing email exchanges between Jack and Ark, and between Ark and Thomas Phipps. I thought I might give you my reactions to that dialogue and came to the guestbook. Before entering my comments, I scrolled through the existing comments to learn that there is a whole lot more to this site -- which I have not, as yet, examined. Anyway, ..... (also, I am not competent in math or physics)
Comments: As I said above, I enjoyed Phipps paper (didn't have too much math so I could follow it) and elected to see what others thought about it. At first, it seemed to me that Ark was deliberate in intention to "take Phipps to task." The nature of the questions seemed to be designed to unsettle the poor man rather than gain an understanding of what he was trying to demonstrate. If I was sincere in trying to understand someone's work, I would certainly go about it differently. I would, for example, share my own thoughts and interpretations somewhat to help the other get me back on track. It seems that Phipps came to the same conclusion Ark's inquiries and beg off.
Fortunately, I kept on reading (it was difficult because each forwarded email repeated all the prior correspondence, which at times included three parties). The dialog really became useful as Jack and Ark continued discussions, and Jack challenged the verity of some of Ark's objections. Yes, Ark's inquiries to Phipps were disguised objections. They sorted out the real difficulties from the trivial. Then, they moved on to new territories of possibilities and it seemed they might actually render a testable hypothesis. Just a little further, guys!
What I gain from this is: Phipps has made a contribution of some merit (maybe less than his claim, I haven't read the book they discussed) by virtue of the testable hypothesis Jack and Ark almost derived (it's just around the corner). Second, the type of dialog engaged between Ark and Phipps does not take us forward. One of the parties was not honest. The type of dialog between Ark and Jack is exactly what advances our understanding. Both are honest with each other, one is very enthusiastic and the other is discerningly cautious, but open minded and contributory to solving the problem.
Thanks
I'll be back to check more this site.
Barry Nazar <barrynazar-at-aol.com>
Grantville, PA USA - Monday, March 11, 2002 at 01:52:24 (MST)

Ark: Thanks for letting me know about your impressions. In fact I did not expected them to be that "positive"
toward me from someone like you who didn't read the book. The devil is always in the details. And that is why I posted the exchange - mainly for those who can follow the details, that is interested theoretical physicists. This way there is a chance that I will get some response and I will be most happy if somebody will point to me and convince me that I was wrong. The main thing in science is get to the truth. And getting to the truth involving being, sometimes, merciless in finding holes, defects and inconsistencies in the published theories.

Sierpien 9, 2004

Do
Ministra Edukacji Narodowej i Sportu,
Miroslawa Sawickiego

Szanowny Panie Ministrze:

Za wstawiennictwem mgr. inz. Krystyny Wojciechowskiej, Glownego Informatyka Instytutu Reumatologicznego w Warszawie, w dniu 27 lipca br. otrzymalem z Biblioteki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego kopie ksiazki pt. ZYCIE JEST SWIATLEM, autorstwa dr hab. Wlodzimierza Sedlaka, wydanej przez Instytut Wydawniczy PAX w 1985 r. Jak poinformowala mnie sluzba biblioteczna USA, ksiazka ta nigdzie nie jest dostepna, aczkolwiek porusza tematy naukowe o miedzynarodowym znaczeniu, tym wiekszym, ze Stephen Hawking zrezygnowal z gloszenia teorii o niemozliwosci ucieczki swiatla z tzw. Czarnych Dziur (Black Holes), czym podwazyl wiarygodnosc Wielkiego Wybuchu (Big Bang) dajacego poczatek Wszechswiatu.

Tylko w trzech rozdzialach: REALIZM I MISTYKA PRZYRODY, HABILITACYJNA SCIANA PLACZU oraz ELEKTROMAGNETYCZNA ARCHITEKTURA, znalazlem sformulowania, ktore raczej nalezy przypisac na niekorzysc Instytutu Wydawniczego PAX, bowiem przedstawiaja autora w bardzo zlym swietle. Bedac w wieku zaawansowanym mogl nie dostrzec korektorskich, badz merytorycznych potkniec.

Analiza tylko tych trzech rozdzialow nasuwa koniecznosc ponownego wydania ksiazki w celu uratowania podwazonego autorytetu wybitnego naukowca w dziedzinie bioelektroniki i rozleglego jej rozpowszechniania w szkolnictwie polskim, takze w tlumaczeniu na jezyki obce, szczegolnie ze bedac autobiografia autora posiada wysokie walory dydaktyczne, jako ze jest przekrojem srodowisk w ktorych sie obracal.

Jesli chodzi o rozdz. SCIANA PLACZU, to podwaza nie tylko proces habilitacyjny, ile wysoka renome Katolickiego Universytetu Lubelskiego, na ktorym proces przebiegal.

Wszystko to domaga sie rewizji przez kompetentne przedstawicielstwa Nauki Polskiej. Naprzyklad, w PLACZU jest twierdzenie, ze rozprawa habilitacyjna autora prowadzona byla na poziomie nizszym od magisterskiego.

Nie wypada, zeby naukowiec tej miary co Wlodzimierz. Sedlak byl DOBITY POSMIERTNIE poniewaz poswiecil swe zycie SWIATLU ZALAMANEMU W KRYSZTALE CZASU i Wolnosci.

Z wyrazami powazania i pytaniem, kto w Polsce kontynuuje prace Sedlaka – Wieslaw Czajkowski.

K/o: 1. W/w mgr.inz. z prosba o nadanie nin.emaliowi formalnego biegu;
2. Nacz. Dyrektor Instytutu Reumatologicznego; 3. Inni zainteresowani.

Das neue Bewußtsein verbreitet sich nicht nur in Nordamerika und Westeuropa, sondern auch in Osteuropa regen sich neue Denkweisen und ganzheitliche, ökologische Impulse. Es steigt dort auch stark das Interesse für Esoterik, Parapsychologie, Radiästhesie und Paramedizin. Zu den osteuropäischen Ländern, wo diese Tendenz am frühersten zu beobachten war, gehört Polen.
Paradigmenwechsel in der Wissenschaft
Eines der Zeichen des neuen Zeitalters ist der Paradigmenwechsel in der Wissenschaft. Zu den führenden polnischen Wissenschaftlern, der alte Denkweisen aufzubrechen versuchte, wird der 1993 verstorbene Prof. Wlodzimierz Sedlak, Geistlicher und Dozent für theoretische Biologie an der Katholischen Universität in Lublin aufgezählt. Er versuchte im tiefsten Sinne des Ausdruckes die spirituelle und wissenschaftliche Weltanschauung, die bisher als gegensätzlich galt, zu verbinden. Der polnische Geistliche und Wissenschaftler hat den Termin "Bioplasma" 1967 in die Fachliteratur eingeführt. An der Katholischen Universität in Lublin wurde speziell für seine interdisziplinären Forschungen der Lehrstuhl für Theoretische Biologie und Ihre Grenzgebiete gebildet. In seinen Arbeiten behauptete Prof. Sedlak, Organismus als biochemisches System kann ohne elektromagnetische Felder nicht existieren. Alle Lebensprozesse sind dank des Bioplasmas möglich. Es ist - nach seinen Forschungen - eine Art ionisiertes Gas nuklearen Ursprungs, eine unzerstörbare Lebensenergie, die als indisches Prana oder chinesisches Ch'i verstanden werden kann. Bioplasma emittiert ständig elektromagnetische Wellen im Gestalt von Biophotonen. Als einer der ersten hat Prof. Sedlak vorgeschlagen, das Funktionieren des Organismus nicht allein physiologisch und biochemisch, sondern auch bioelektronisch zu verstehen. Die Krankheit war - nach seinen Ansichten - Zerstörung des elektromagnetischen Gleichgewichtes. Er glaubte, in der baldigen Zukunft wird die Diagnosestellung durch die Messung der Veränderungen und Unregelmigkeiten der Biofeldemission der kranken Organe möglich. Prof. Sedlak hat ebenso "bioelektronische" Anthropologie entwickelt. Der Mensch wird oft in seinen Arbeiten "homo electronicus" genannt. Das menschliche Bewußtsein, das - nach ihn - ein elektromagnetisches Feld ähnelt, ist im Evolutionsprozeß auf einer bestimmten Entwicklungsstufe entstanden. Wenn der Mensch - so Prof. Sedlak - seine Verbundenheit mit den Energien des Kosmos entdeckt, wird er "homo cosmicus". Der bioplasmatische "homo electronicus" wird seine Unsterblichkeit zum Bewutsein bringen, indem er Ewigkeit von Bioplasma begreift. Während des Todes sterben - nach Sedlak - nur biochemische Strukturen und die Energie "lebt" weiter. Dem Menschen, dem Quanten-Prinzipien des Lebens bewußt werden, ist es auch leichter die Einheit aller Lebwesen zu erfassen. Theorien von Prof. Sedlak sind auch ein guter Ausgangspunkt für die Lösung vieler Rätsel der heutigen Wissenschaft. Dank der Entdeckung des Bioplasmakörpers wäre es Erklärung solcher Phänomene wie u.a. Psychokinese, Telepathie, Teleradiästhesie und Geistheilung möglich. Wenn die Bioplasma-Theorie von Prof. Sedlak durch wissenschaftliche Experimente völlig nachgewiesen werden konnte, würde es eine ganz neue Stufe nicht nur für die Wissenschaft, sondern auch für die menschliche Weltanschauung bedeuten.

czajkowski <modjeskisatthefreesite.com>
san diego, ca USA - Monday, August 09, 2004 at 22:57:45 (CEST)

[Webmaster comment: Ja co prawda prac Sedlaka nie kontynuuje, jednak Go cytuje i Go gleboko powazam. Nie uwazam, by ksiazka Sedlaka ZYCIE JEST SWIATLEM miala "wysokie walory dydaktyczne". Uwazam natomiast ze jest to ksiazka odwazna, kontrowersyjna i pobudzajaca do myslenia. Powinna sie w istocie znalezc w bibliotekach szkolnych, choc dobrze by bylo by byla zaopatrzona w wywazona przedmowe.]

Dear Laura and Ark,
After discovering your site last summer, I find that, among the many sites I frequent,this is the one I keep coming back to for inspiration and learning. There is much to learn and experience, and all seems to be in many of your sites. If you would comment on Dr. Wilhelm Reichs discoveries (ORGONE ENERGY) in particular. Dr. Reichs books were burned here in the United States!! Quantum Physics not my better subjects but I am learning. Thank you both for being!!
Robert Gonzalez <rgonzalez@plsn.com>
los angeles, ca USA - Wednesday, August 18, 2004 at 22:12:02 (CEST)

interesting things, i hope there'll be more translated into other languages,
including my own.

pozdrawiam.
slog <..@wp.pl>
Gliwice, Polska - Wednesday, October 27, 2004 at 11:27:49 (CEST)