The Hutchison Effect
16.01. 2005
I have noticed an increasing number of references to the Hutchison Effect, both in emails and comments on the board.
This, in the main, is almost certainly due to a rather simplistic, wildly speculative and totally inaccurate article written by Paranoid Jester at ppsociety under 'Science Corner'. To call it science is nonsense, as I will demonstrate. I note that an increasing number of TKers discuss it as if they understand what it is all about. They however, like PJ, have absolutely no idea of what they say! If they only knew!
The article is nothing to do with science, it's all about assumptions and distortions of the facts as presented. It is a collection of articles by three men who have worked closely together on the Hutchison Effect. I do not intend to dispute their claims, what I do challenge is the arguments used by PJ in an attempt to justify his belief in PK / TK by using the Hutchison Effect.
PJ's article is seriously flawed in many respect, so much so that you can drive a horse and cart through the holes in this argument! The Hutchison Effect cannot be used to support a belief in either 'anti-gravity' or TK or PK, or whatever you want to call it. The best way to demonstrate this is to go through the article. I'm sorry but it does make for a long read, but then it is a long article full of highly dubious and false claims.
Here we go. The red text is quotes from his article.
"Now, I know this is going to sound clichéd and far-fetched, but... folks, I may have stumbled across the answer we have been seeking - as per the force referred to as PK altogether. I don't have scientific proof yet, but the similarities are just too much within the range of reasonable classification of PK being this effect."
You really think so? This isn't just another of you cock-ups like quantum mechanics and 'action at a distance' that I had to put you right on is it? Not another "Aharonov-Bohm effect" ? You have researched this carefully this time haven't you? After all, you wouldn't want to look silly again would you?
"The argument seems to be consistent with scientists and skeptics alike as to why they don't accept PK - "There isn't enough energy to move objects from the human brain's energy. That's why the whole thing is nonsense !"
Yes, we do say that. So....?
"Perhaps this may comfort those individuals who maintain that notion, but technically they are correct. Even small objects would require vast amounts of power to achieve even microscopic motion"
Very true, we are technically correct. In fact, we are correct. Period.
"I mean, what do I have to say about that? How is one going to generate enough energy to move things without touching it (even with the watt hours the human body consumes from food calories and the like)? To be honest, this does seem to be a perplexing one - or maybe not. "
Yes, how IS one going to generate all that energy out of one's head? Yes, human beings, like all creatures, do consume lots of energy just to stay alive. What has that to do with TK? Oh, never mind, carry on.
"Let's remember something before we go any further... what is making, let's say, heavy objects difficult to move to begin with? What is making objects hard to overcome at all as far as pushing, pulling or lifting goes? That's right... gravity. How simple would it be to move an object if gravity's force on it was completely interrupted? Most simple indeed. Well, how could one interrupt gravity without using large amounts of power to do it? That would be scientifically impossible, wouldn't it? Well... not as per the discoveries of John Hutchison (and Mel Winfield), anyway."
'Interrupting gravity'? When scrap yards lift cars with huge electro-magnets attached to cranes no one calls that 'interrupting gravity' do they? Its called magnetism. That's what PJ refers to here, Hutchison's effect is a form of magnetism, and it's called Diamagnetism, calling it 'Anti-gravity' is absurd, it is only magnetism that applies to non metallic objects. Do Jumbo jets demonstrate anti-gravity because they fly? The magnetic effect of diamagnetism is in fact so weak it is only possible to detect it in objects that do not exhibit other forms of magnetism, (Such as frogs!) More of this later.
Anyway, remember the important factor here, don't forget it, this is what this argument is all about.... ENERGY! "Well, how could one interrupt gravity without using LARGE amounts of power to do it?That would be scientifically impossible, wouldn't it? Well... not as per the discoveries of John Hutchison (and Mel Winfield), anyway." So DOES Hutchison make this claim that large amounts of energy are NOT needed? Here is what he says, word for word, on his site, as kindly linked to by PJ......
"I will attempt to explain details of the apparatus used in my experiments and will start with the input power used to trigger the hosts of Tesla coils, static generators, transformers, interferometers, magnetics, metal masses, and nuclear sources, etc. The power source was 110 volts AC operated at 400 watts to 4000 watts. One side of the AC line had a power factor capacitor (60 Cycles, 250 volt) and a 100 amp current limiter The magnetics of the current limiter were also used in the experiment interactions. This power source was divided up in a function box and, through switching, went to variacs. The variac outputs were monitored by wattmeters, ampmeters, and voltmeters, and supplied up to fourteen transformers. These included twelve-volt transformers for vacuum tubes, 400,000 volt AC transformers, a Siemens 250,000 volt DC Xray transformers, and other items. Regeneration equipment of 450 kHz up to 2500 Mhz was also operated. Warning: The re-creation of certain aspects of these experiments is extremely dangerous and should not be attempted without proper training or guidance."
My God! Did you take a note of that! 400,000 volts! 250,000 volt DC Xray transformers! etc. etc! Christ Almighty, it wouldn't even be safe to enter the room with that lot going on! And they worry about mobile 'phones!
Just to remind you what PJ said "Well, how could one interrupt gravity without using large amounts of power to do it? That would be scientifically impossible, wouldn't it? Well... not as per the discoveries of John Hutchison (and Mel Winfield), anyway." Errrrrr, excuse me? That ISN'T a large amount of power then?
So how in hell does PJ justify his claim that large amounts of power are NOT required? Damn good question, read on.....
"Diamagnetism Demonstrates Antigravity
First off, we need to understand what is to be discussed as far as antigravitation goes. Whenever I'm referring to antigravity in this section, I hereby start by referring to diamagnetism, which is a very weak form of magnetism that is the result of changes in the orbital motion of electrons due to an external magnetic field being present. Now what does that mean? It means that you are actually able to levitate non-magnetic substances including water and animals (frogs have been the animal of choice)."
Now all is made clear, he IS talking about MAGNETISM, in a very weak form, and not anti-gravity. Okay, so it's claimed that diamagnetism can levitate frogs using the Hutchison Effect. Okay. Normal magnetism can levitate metal objects. So what?
"As you can see, "antigravity" does therefore exist. Non-metallic objects are being lifted off the ground and suspended in the air through diamagnetism. "
Wow, hold on a minute! First it's anti-gravity, then it's magnetism, now it's anti-gravity again! Why not be honest and just call it what it is, magnetism!
"Scientists prefer not to call it antigravity simply because magnetic forces are responsible, but guess what? Gravity is having no effect on living animals and objects that don't have to be metallic - so if that's not antigravity, then I don't understand what would be."
Then you must be really dumb. YOU have already said yourself what it is ...MAGNETISM. So what is your problem? Why do you call it 'anti-gravity' one minute and then magnetism the next? We all understand that it IS magnetism, but you prefer to call it by a more dramatic term. So according to PJ, if a magnet lifts a metal object, that's magnetism at work, but if a magnet lifts a non-metallic object by working directly on its atomic charge, then that's "levitation". That's only because 'levitation' sounds more sort of TKish then magnetism.
"Having said that, it has come to my conclusion that other forms of antigravitational phenomenon might be able to exist... "
Er, You fail to explain your rather bizarre conclusion. What you are saying is you see a form of magnetism demonstrated (talked about on the internet to be precise) and conclude that it is demonstrating "anti-gravity' then go on to extrapolate from that that other forms of "antigravitational phenomenon" may exist? I see. Why? On what basis? It's only magnetism anyway. I saw a form of gravity demonstrated today when my pen rolled of my desk and fell to the floor. From that am I to conclude that other forms of gravity may exist?
"to exist... in other words, I am stating that since the molecules (or in this case, electrons) of a substance are what are being affected in diamagnetism to make it happen, then hence one might be able to do many more things to substances to make them levitate by playing with the atoms in various other ways. So this is what I use as my justification for antigravity being a reality in which many other practical antigravitational means become possible - starting with the principles within the phenomenon of diamagnetism being my qualification.
As if the previous conjectures were already not enough, whereby PJ managed to conclude that magnetism, is anti-gravity, which means there may be other forms of it.....we are now fully prepared to take off on our flight of fantasy with.... "hence one might be able to do many more things to substances to make them levitate by playing with the atoms in various other ways." So by making false and totally unfounded assumptions there is now no reason why we can't then keep on going and claim that hell, this is levitation at work and we may be able to do it using other means... "Hence one might be able to do many more things..." And this is all under the banner of "Science Corner"? Give me strength, this is kiddies corner! But anyway, so what? What has any of this to do with TK, or PK, or whatever? NOTHING AT ALL. We are only talking about massive amounts of machinery generating massive amounts of power.
"So this is what I use as my justification for antigravity being a reality in which many other practical antigravitational means become possible - starting with the principles within the phenomenon of diamagnetism being my qualification."
What PJ has done here is to take the Hutchison Effect and Diamagnetism and distort it with his own language, make wild and unsupported assumptions, and then claim it justifies that anti-gravity is a 'reality'. So armed with the notion of 'anti-gravity' now firmly in place??? we are now ready to move on. Are you really sure you want to?
"Now here's where the skeptics will say, "Ah.. but don't you see? Diamagnetism requires massive amounts of electrical power for everything to work. 16 Teslas are what you need to make frogs levitate. Such an amount of power coming from a human would fry the cerebral hemispheres to a crisp."
This is where this discussion started! We haven't made any progress at all. And let's get this clear, it isn't just the skeptics who say you need massive amounts of power, John Hutchison himself describes massive amounts of power!
So how does PJ get around this little problem, which is the problem we started out with right at the start remember.
Well, first of all he tries to make it look as if the people that think that lots of power is needed, people like Hutchison for example, must be daft. This is what PJ says...
I'm convinced those skeptics who say this and use it as their starting and ending point obviously have not done enough research on how many different ways antigravitational forces could come about (or much research on resonance) - and whether you really even need much energy to do it!
Hmm. So we haven't done our research? And you PJ, being so super smart and all, have? What a joker he is! Well let's just see about research then shall we?.....
"Before I get into the Hutchison effect, understand that this effect has not reached full acceptance by regular scientists due to the difficulties of replicating these phenomenon. So... "
Oh never mind all the disclaimer bullshit, we know its not recognised by "regular scientists" (ie. scientists), just get on with it!
"What Is The Hutchison Effect ? Note: This effect has not yet been accepted by the scientific mainstream. It is an effect purported by multiple supporters. This is not meant to be taken as proof of a valid phenomenon in science at present. "
Okay, OKAY! So it's bullshit, just get on with it....then I can continue to PROVE it's bullshit. (This is SO ppsociety bullshit.... "We do not claim these vids show TK, we don't even claim TK exists, we do not claim any paranormal shit is real, etc. etc. we just like to talk about it.). What is it with these people?
"This is ONE UNIQUE phenomenon. I've never seen or heard of anything like it before and everything seems to come down to resonance for how this is all able to happen. Much of the description for this effect is from an article written by a man named Mark A. Solis (I have to admit that I don't know what his credentials are, but anyway...). This is what Mark has to say: "
Just a cotton picking minute here! You don't know what his credentials are? You quote him purely on the basis that you like what he says? You mean he could be the guy who picks up litter for a living? Oh yes, very scientific. He sounds like a right quack to me. Who the hell is Mark? I'll tell you who he is.
If PJ had bothered to do even a simple Google search he would have discovered that Mark A Solis is none other than John Hutchison's webmaster! Hardly an independent endorsement! And PJ says that skeptics should carry out research! What a jerk!
MARK... "Challengers should note that their apparatus must be limited to the use of 75 Watts of power from a 120 Volt AC outlet, as that is all that is used by Hutchison's apparatus to levitate a 60-pound cannon ball."
Total bullshit! That isn't the apparatus as described by Hutchison himself. I think Mark just happened to conveniently 'forget' about all that other equipment that boosted up the power. I quote Hutchison..."These included twelve-volt transformers for vacuum tubes 400,000 volt AC transformers, a Siemens 250,000 volt DC Xray transformers, and other items". Mark is only talking about the INPUT power, not the output power.
I will not bother to go into the other bizarre claims made by Mark, as it's only the power level that is important here.
So who else does PJ use to endorse this "low energy theory" and back up the claims of the Hutchison Effect? He uses Mel Winfield.
Who is Mel Winfield? None other than the guy who reckons it was all his idea and who worked with Hutchison!
Hardly an independent endorsement!
However, to continue.....
"Skeptics will thus say, "There STILL isn't enough power to move objects. The human body's entire energy output is 100 watts. That's barely enough power to move a pen for even a brief period of time!" What's my answer to that? Very simple... SO WHAT ??? The Hutchison effect only requires 75 watts to lift so much as a 60-70 pound cannonball. Well skeptics, is that close enough to your admitted 100 watt human-energy-output capacity? Furthermore, it has been found that the human body has the capacity for lots more energy than many are aware of. Body power
Again... So the answer is NO, you do not need tens of thousands of watts to move even heavy objects if the Hutchison effect/nucleonic energy was the force all by itself."
Did any of you Tkers actually bother to check out that site? Body power It talks about using the movement of the body to wind up watches (I have one, its called an automatic, no batteries needed, the movement of the body winds it up, mine is 40 year old Omega Constellation Automatic). It also talks about using foot steps to power tiny motors, and of extracting energy from body wastes etc. This is all normal everyday old fashioned physics. NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING PARANORMAL! So why the hell mention it in support of TK/PK? What has any of this to do with TK or PK or whatever? NOTHING!
"How Would One Experiment With The Hutchison Effect? I asked a physicist from the University Of Dallas what the Hutchison effect was and he mentioned he had never heard of it. He said he found no professional articles on the subject and suggested it might be quack science. So how do we know the H-effect isn't? There's only one way we need to see for ourselves."
"Quack science?" Yep! You bet your arse it is! So how does PJ suggest we test this for ourselves? How can we discover if a physicist from the University of Dallas is correct when he suggests it's crap? What other independent source can we use? Another particle physicist from another institute would be good, someone who really understands these things. So what does PJ do in his effort to find the 'PJ style' proof?
Simple, follow PJ's links that will direct you back to the articles written by John Hutchison!
This is getting just so stupid I can hardly believe it. And TKers thing this all makes sense!
So if you want to check if a university physicist is correct in his opinion about an article by Hutchison what do you do? You go back to the guy that wrote it in the first place! And that's your (PJ style) independent research!
UNREAL! We have clearly entered another dimension folks!
Finally, thank God, we reach PJ's conclusion;
"To Conclude:
Have we finally figured out psychokinesis?? Is THIS what it has been all along? I mean, how many similarities are we looking at here: poltergeist phenomenon, The Philadelphia Experiment, levitation, telekinesis, Pyro and Cryo PK, etc. - all of these tend to be matching the Hutchison effect/nucleonic energy where all you really need is 75 watts of power to do it... which is exactly within the normal wattage of the average human body ...where the skeptics themselves have admitted that the human body possesses at least this much energy (100 watts). Does the human brain's resonant energies match this phenomenon? IS THIS IT??? "
For heaven's sake stop getting so excitable! You are now linking in the Philadelphia Experiment?
The human brain is NOT CAPABLE OF PRODUCING 75 watts, not even one single watt, let alone what Hutchison used, which was an incredible 400,000 volts and 4,000 watts!
Do NOT think that the human brain, or any part of the human body, produces electricity, as in flowing electrons, because quite simply it doesn't, not one single electron flows through the brain, or anywhere else in the body, as electricity. Look it up.
This is about as much as my sanity can take. There really is no need for me to continue anyway.
-----------------------------------------------
The entire argument as presented by PJ is a perfect example of how to totally screw up a simple article, read all sorts of wrong things into it, make bizarre and wild assumptions totally without foundation, back it up with the outlandish views of other people all working on the same project and holding the same beliefs, then claim it all supports TK. The one voice of reason, the ONLY independent person quoted, the only person actually qualified to give an opinion, said it was 'quack science' and was brushed aside. Why? Because that is not what PJ wanted to hear!
Unreal.
That's all I can say.
Totally unreal.
To call this 'science' is a disgrace. This is what happens when ignorant (I picked the word carefully) people trawl the net looking for information to support a belief they already have.
Anyone can do a Google search. Most people are capable of reading an article. So why is it then we are not all brilliant scientists earning a fortune?
It is because there is a hell of a difference between reading a thing and understanding it. From understanding a thing to extrapolating new ideas and applying it to new situations takes even greater skill. Furthermore, to use your knowledge, skill and judgement to fit new information into existing information are just some of the skills that a scientists requires.
As PJ has so deftly demonstrated, not many people have these skills. This is why so many ignorant people invent so many weird and wacky 'theories' and honestly believe they make sense, because they are just not smart enough to realise they are talking rubbish. It often follows that those that read those articles are also too ignorant to realise they are reading a pile of horse manure. As was the case with PJ's ridiculous claims for the 'Aharonov-Bohm effect' and TK.
As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Finally: This site is the first one that PJ links to. Please visit it. Diamagnetism This is what it says:
"Diamagnetism is a very weak form of magnetism that is only exhibited in the presence of an external magnetic field. It is the result of changes in the orbital motion of electrons due to the external magnetic field. The induced magnetic moment is very small and in a direction opposite to that of the applied field. When placed between the poles of a strong electromagnet, diamagnetic materials are attracted towards regions where the magnetic field is weak. DIAMAGNETISM IS FOUND IN ALL MATERIALS; HOWEVER, BECAUSE IT IS SO WEAK IT CAN ONLY BE OBSERVED IN MATERIALS THAT DO NOT EXHIBIT OTHER FORMS OF MAGNETISM. Diamagnetism was discovered and named in September 1845 by Michael Faraday. Category:Electromagnetism.
DIAMAGNETISM and the HUTCHISON EFFECT have nothing whatever to do with TK.
Return to Telekinesis: fact or fantasy?