flawless teleportation theory

A russian nuclear scientist has developed a new theory in physics which he has named 'Hole Theory'.

This theory allows instant teleportation of a body between any two points in the universe. The theory is more than just an explanation of how teleportation is possible but it is also an entirely new description of the universe... it postulates a new explanation of nuclear forces, gravitation and the geometry of the universe. So far the theory has been reviewed in various eastern european universities and has been found to be logically flawless with no contradictions to the work of einstein. Also the theories explanation of gravitation is the most plausable explanation ever postulated in physics.

The official website of the theory: www.holetheory.com

There are literally thousands of 'crack pipe' science theories going around, but i believe this theory is the real deal. The author of it is a respected nuclear physicist who has worked on particle accelerators and other projects.

I am looking for physicists to help develop the theory further. Nuclear physicists, theoretical physicists or just plain physicists are welcome to take part in this joint project. Engineers and mathematicians are also needed. You might ask why this theory isn't front page news! Well, the theory goes against much of the mainstream ideas and therefore is received badly. The theory does need work, as all theories in physics do. However the theory is incredibly simple, anyone can read and understand it without a degree in physics. However a mathematical description needs to be worked on.

Before anyone remarks that teleportation violates relativity and the principles of causality, this method of teleportation does not violate either as is shown on the website.

It is unfortuante that in mainstream phsyics alternate theories are ridiculed, or if they are proven correct become highly secret black projects which the military industrial complex will NEVER reveal to the public.

I look forward to constructive replies.

If it works and doesnt contradict anything then I think every1 on this sight should get together and try to build a machine using these physics.

Come on every1 lets all invent it and get royalties the rest of our lives. We'll be filthy stinkin rich

you taking the piss? did i ask for help to build it? no lol. The theory is a theory, not a set of technical blueprints.

Originally posted by metallicabrainz
you taking the piss? did i ask for help to build it? no lol. The theory is a theory, not a set of technical blueprints.

I didnt say you wanted to build it you needed help or anything, just that if every1 here were to invent it we'd all be rich. Im gonna start drawing the blueprints now.

oh, Croat56, you crack me up every day

other than that, this is a pretty long read, and none of it really makes a whole lot of sense to me because i'm not very well trained in physics

[edit on 2/22/2005 by hallucinated]

metallicabrainz---

for a more organized approach to this just u2u ADVISOR to start a research project about this...

in a research project, members come together and gain information on a specific subject...

because you are asking for help, i just thought that you would want to approach this by starting a research project...

so, if you want to start a research project, i will be happy to join...

yeah thats what i meant... a research project.

I'm new on abovetopsecret so how do i start one here?

just u2u ADVISOR to get a "scholar" status and to ask if you can start a research project (he will say yes)...

for more info. just check the top six threads on this page:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

you can also look at other research projects to see how they are ran...

thanks man, i'll get right on it.



[edit on 22-2-2005 by metallicabrainz]

Originally posted by metallicabrainz
thanks man, i'll get right on it.

this could work well, i'm in contact with the russian nuclear scientist and have been for a half year now, so this could be an opportunity to do some real cutting edge science research.

if you can, keep me updated (with u2u's) and i will help you...

glad to see you are getting started...

if you need any other help about ATS, just u2u me...

Here is an abstract. Note there are other authors. Strangley its the only thing that comes up in google scholar.

THere is absolutely nothing preventing him from publishing in, say, nature. Lemme check the nature site. No results. Same with Science. This in itself isn't particularly meaningful, but moderately suspicious. The co-author's are also not comming up with anything. The same for all three for the arXiv archive, which is even more bizzare. I couldn't find a full list of publications on the two webistes that the guy maintains either, but was able to find some.

1. Leshan C.Z., - The combination of gravitational, strong and weak interaction in hole vacuum and matter, Conference proceedings, ICPS94 S. Petersburg, 1994, 2. Leshan C.Z., The combination of gravitational, strong and weak interaction in hole vacuum and matter, Hole physics, teleportation and levitation. N2, 2002.
3. Leshan C.Z - Combination of gravitational, strong and weak interaction in hole vacuum and matter, str. August 31, 22 Balti, 1994
4. Conference proceedings, ICPS ’ 95, Copenhagen, 1995
1. K. Z. Leshan, the properties of hole teleportation, hole physics, teleportation and levitation, volume 1, ?„– 1, August 2001
1. Leshan C. Z. – The combination of gravitational, strong and weak interaction in hole vacuum and matter, Tip. 31 August 22, Balti, 1994
2. Leshan C.Z., – The combination of gravitational, strong and weak interaction in hole vacuum and matter, Conference proceedings, ICPS94 S. Petersburg, 1994, p.143
3. Conference proceedings, ICPS’95, Copenhagen, 1995
4. Leshan C. Z. The hole theory of gravitation, Hole physics, teleportation and levitation, N1, 2001.
1. Leshan SHORT CIRCUIT. - the Hole Theory of gravity. Hole physics, teleportation and levitation, nr1, August 2001
2. Leshan SHORT CIRCUIT. - gravity becomes strong at short distances and is fulfilled the function of nonexchange nuclear forces with the aid of the vacuum holes, hole physics, teleportation and levitation, 1(2), 2002
3. Leshan C.Z, The combination of gravitational, strong and weak interaction in hole vacuum and matter, Conference proceedings, ICPS94, S Petersburg of 1994, p 143
4. Leshan SHORT CIRCUIT, the association of gravitational, strong and weak interaction in the hole vacuum and material, type. 31 August 22, Belts', 1994
5. Conference proceedings, ICPS'95, Copenhagen, 1995

(some of those are duplicated, it was a quick cut and paste)

He's been researching this stuff for 10 years, but hasn't been able to get any articles accepted in 'mainstream' or more recognized journals? I just find that rather bizzare, especially since some of these articles are reports from conferences, so he can't claim that no one has ever seen these things.

He is also apparently a bit paranoid that 'Joe Firmage' is stealing his research and reading his emails and that he's a 'pirate'. Argh.

At www.geocities.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">this page he is apparently 'running' a journal of 'hole physics' that one can purchase. At 15 bucks its a steal. How many of the above articles are from that journal? It looks like there is at least duplication (which makes sense tho) of papers. It doesn't look like anyone but himself has published anything in either of the 2 issues of the journal. Wouldn't that really just make it a book that he's the author of? I find it bizzare that there is no mention of him or the other two authors on the usenet sci groups. Actually, thats probably a good thing.

Leshan also maintains a geocities webpage here

Here is the pdf for the ICPs 1999 symposium.

This is one of the journals he published in that I was able to find on line. Its the "Journal Of Theoretics", apparently it publishes very theoretical papers, this doesn't meant that anything can get published, but it does mean that things that haven't been worked out in detail can be published and that very speculative stuff can be published. It looks like it published once a year for six years and is now defunct. Some of the papers published in it are titled:

1. Physicist Arrogance and Purposeful Ignorance
   
2. Smoking does not cause lung cancer
   

From one of the final editorials:

Rather than a author having to prove that his theory is right to the reviewer, we had to prove that his/her theory was wrong. This acceptance criterion I believe is unique and though it was more work, the results were worth it.

The first 'issue' has like three articles all written by the same guy (the editor) except one 'anonymous' article, which was a three or four paragraph story. this artcle/issue notes that the journal received a very poor review in Science for some reason, which is rather informative. It looks like the first couple of issues were only filled with articles from the editor/creator.

There are reasons why some journals are ignored.

Uhm, hmm. The original abstract I found listed "S. Octeabriscoe" as a co-author. But Octeabriscoe is a town in moldavia. Infact its the town that Leshan lives in. Did he falsify someone elses name to give credence to his report? Or is it possible that there was an error, with S octe being south octebriscoe and it not formating properly? Singerei, R. L., is suspicious too. Singerei is a district in moldavia. Hmm, I think I will email the author and make him aware of this thread. Might prove intersting.

[ur=http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf]This[/url] pdf is from the air force, titled Teleportation Physics Study. A reivew of Leshan specifically starts on page 52. The report seems to be of many speculative papers on teleportation and concludes that:

At present, none of the theoretical concepts explored in this chapter have been brought to a level of technical maturity, where it becomes meaningful to ascertain whether any form of e-Teleportation is theoretically possible between extra space dimensions and different or parallel universes/spaces.

It seems to favour various brane theories.

Specifically, about Vacuum Holes, it states:

Leshan points out that the teleportation device must curve spacetime so that the starting and destination points in the universe coincide, and the curved geometry must be similar to that of a black hole for an instant, so that a channel between the two points can be formed. (This sounds suspiciously like creating a traversable wormhole via an Einstein-Rosen bridge, which can be made traversable by perturbing the Schwarzschild spacetime metric an infinitesimal amount.)[...] This teleportation concept is very convoluted. Leshan does not offer any further explanations that are useful nor does he offer any precise technical description for the vacuum holes, and how they are to be produced and manipulated. There is also no mathematical physics derivation published by Leshan to support this concept. I am totally unable to evaluate this concept in the absence of a rigorous theoretical framework. This concept is too sketchy and full of technical “holes” to seriously consider it any further for this study. The reader should note that it has already been demonstrated that traversable wormholes are the best physical principle available to implement teleportation between universes and extra space dimensions

I have to state, that this all seems rather bizzare. I don't know anything about the irregular journals from moldavia, perhaps they are the most repsected journals in eastern europe, perhaps not. I find it hard to beleive that the theories are reasonably worked out, but can't receive publication in more recognized journals. When a person submits to one (and to be clear, just in case there is any bizzare impressions on this, I have not submitted papers to any journals) and gets rejected, you get a list of problems and suggestions. I'd think it unusual if those corrections couldn't be addressed over ten years.

thanks for looking into his background nygdan,

Leshan is sincere about his work. He is also very poor and this might be why he charged 15 bucks, however all his theory papers are avaliable online for free so i dont think that's suspicious. Nygdan, Moldova is one of the poorest countries in europe. Yes he does believe people are trying to steal his concept, but there is alot of evidence that that is so. There are documented cases of people under false names stealing his ideas, and if you'd like i can u2u you evidence of this. As for his paranoia, this guy served in the soviet army and was put into a mental institution by his unit commander for proposing using space-time properties to propell rockets. Wouldn't that kinda thing mess with your mind? I mean, that was before the 80s, but it shows how opressive the soviets were. I know your questioning his character and intentions but, is it really his fault if the mainstream journals reject his work? They are well known to reject anything which goes against mainstream science ideas.

I think hole theory should be judged on the theory itself, not on the author's background... what is this, politics? There are many nuttcases working in the science field, people who you'd be correct to label 'insane'. But the true test of anyone's work is, the work.

I wonder if anyone called einstein a nutcase in the early days of his career?

Just curious nygdan, in your post you didn't refer to his theory at all... have you read it?

[edit on 22-2-2005 by metallicabrainz]

This sounds more like kind of worm-hole.
Not a spatial kind, but more of a outer unviersal conduit kind of WH.




Definitions:


Spatial Worm-Hole: A worm-hole that tunnels through sub-space to connect to points in space making travel time near instintaneous.

Outer universal conduit worm-hole: A wormhole that leaves the universe and reconnects to another point in the universe.

Analogies:


Spatial worm-hole: Imagine an apple, now instead of moving around the perimeter, oyu create a tunnel through the apples insides.

Outer universal conduit worm-hole: Imagine an apple, now instead of traveling around on the apples circumfrence, imagine a string leaving the apple and than reconeecting somewhere else on the apple.


Outer universal conduit worm-hole is not what its called, I do not know what its called, I used that term because its the closest to what it is in my opinion.

If you have a website, you could at least spell words correct and have average grammar. The website seems to be run by someone other than him because it mentions an interview with him and tends to be written in the narrative.

His interview replies seem to show lack of intelligence from someone who he claims to be showing irrational behaviour and anger. If so intelligent and philosophical in his physics approach why get all angry about the world!?
He says something along the lines of "I hate the mfking russian biatches, the suppress and steal my work, I am so poor, they steal my money, blah, blah, wish that russia wasn't communist...."

Why he interested in money so much, and whyis he so paranoid?

a) schizophrenia
b) arrogance
c) jealousy



Just my analysis

Hi
This theory seems to me to be a classic case of a circular argument. He says:
"That fact that from this theory follows teleportation and levitation proves its truth, as teleportation and levitation cannot be derived logically from the erroneous theory"
ie the fact that teleportation and levitation exist proves the theory, then he uses the theory to prove that t/p and levitation exist.

Some of his comments dont make much sense -
" For teleportation by hole method it is necessary to send a particle outside of the Universe or to curve space-time in such a way that points of start and finish coincided."
" Nevertheless, expectation time of natural teleportation for macroscopic bodies can exceed the age of the Universe."
and
" A teleported particle appears in a random point of the Universe, which is rather beyond the horizon of the visible Universe."

When I see something teleported to appear at a random point outside the universe in 20 billion years time I may come to consider the theory, until then ...............

The Farseer


[edit on 23-2-2005 by The_Farseer]

I'm with Nygdan and Farseer on this one.

He pulls some results out of thin air (no maths, though the papers he cites have mathematics. And he does not account for the breakdown products we see in nuclear research... we have a lot of proven photos of subatomic particles. Yes, I know he says "the need for these has not arisen" but whether or not he needs them, we have irrefutable evidence that they exist.

Nor does his theory explain the photon, which is both a particle and a wave.

He talks about "hole productioin" yet never actually explains mathematically how it's obtained or what its size is or how you aggregate it (though he thows around these concepts, too.

Originally posted by metallicabrainz
why he charged 15 bucks,

I had meant that 15 dollars for a scientific journal is practically absurdly low.

Moldova is one of the poorest countries in europe.

Other researchers from there seem to not have the same problem publishing in established journals.

I know your questioning his character and intentions but, is it really his fault if the mainstream journals reject his work?

There doesn't seem to be any indication that he's submited his work to the mainstream journals, thats the thing I find strange.

They are well known to reject anything which goes against mainstream science ideas.

Since when? Journals reject poor papers and bad science, not controversial science. Even if a more technical journal rejected one of his papers, there'd be an explanation and lists or requested improvements. He's certainly had the time to do this. And he'd still have the option of publishing in the more repsected but still very theoretical journals.

I think hole theory should be judged on the theory itself, not on the author's background... what is this, politics?

Poltics is mrely people interacting. So yes, there is some politics in here. It looks like his work has been considered on its own merits and found to be unoriginal in places and rejected for numerous reasons, at least according to the air force report. There isn't much to work with, at least from what I've seen, as most of his stuff is very vague and merely speculative. A scientists reputation is built on lots of things, and it is something that has to be considered. There are reasons for having poor reputations.

There are many nuttcases working in the science field, people who you'd be correct to label 'insane'. But the true test of anyone's work is, the work.

I wonder if anyone called einstein a nutcase in the early days of his career?

I'm sure people did. But his papers, even tho the weren't mainstream, were still quickly published, because they made their case. This guy doesn't seem to have made his case very well.

Just curious nygdan, in your post you didn't refer to his theory at all... have you read it?

I've read bits and peices of it that were presented in the various webpages. Its not much of a theory in all honesty. Just that you can use these holes to effectively envelope something and have it pop out of normal space/the universe and then use that to have it pop back into the universe somewhere else. What did you find most convincing in his work?

the far seer
Nevertheless, expectation time of natural teleportation for macroscopic bodies can exceed the age of the Universe."

That was for spontaneous non-engineered occurances.

For teleportation by hole method it is necessary to send a particle outside of the Universe or to curve space-time in such a way that points of start and finish coincided

It might sound bizzare, but its something like what worm-holes and the like are all about. Thats the other thing, his theory, as noted in the airforce paper, isn't really his theory, its einstein and rosenburg (or whoever)

The thing is, all this guy seems to do is say 'if we could do this then this would happen' and the like, but he hasn't done any experimental tests or presented any models that verify his statements. Effectively, he's presented a very vague tho intersting theory, and done nothing to attempt to verify it or make use of it. He seems to think that its justified because its a 'beautiful' theory and the 'best' theory beause of what appear to be some relatively subjective reasons. In a way thats a good way to go about it, the simplest theory with the most explanatory power, all else being equal, probably resembles the truth most closely. But he hasn't shown that 'all else are equal', and I don't even think he' s demonstrated that its more explanatory, other than to say thta it is.

I received a reply from Mr. Leshan and he reported that he will look at the page and should be able to reply. That should be interesting. Maybe there can be clarification of some things here then.

good work nygdan,

im gonna keep an open mind we'll have to see what he says!

I look forward to his reply as well. Despite my post I have an open mind on this, as I'm no great supporter of modern particle physics, in fact I think most of the high-energy physics is probably a figment of the high-energy physisist's imagination.

The Farseer