THE MAN WHO DISSOLVED CLOUDS THE BIOLOGICAL ASPECT OF METEOROLOGY By ROLF ALEXANDER

T H E ATMOSPHERE The envelope of gases around our planet, which so many naive correlators of data

claim as the sole province of meteorology, is really a biological phenomenon. Each year the plants of the earth combine about 150 billion tons of carbon with

25 billion tons of hydrogen, and set free 400 billion tons of oxygen. In endlessly repeated cycles the atoms of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen come from the atmosphere and the hydrosphere (the world sea) into the biosphere (the thin layer of living things on the earth’s surface and the sea). After a tour of duty which may last for seconds or millions of years in the unstable organic world, they return to the stable equilibrium of inorganic nature. Such is the atmosphere.

ORGANIC ORGANIZATIONS The organizations of atoms in the biosphere are distinguished from those of the

inorganic world by two characteristics: chemical complexity and high energy content. In the inorganic state they are simply molecules of carbon dioxide (COz), water (HzO), carbon acid (HLO,), carbonate and bicarbonate ions (CO,) and (HCO,). In striking contrast is the complexity of even the simplest organic compounds such as glucose (C6H1z06) not to speak of the enormous and intricate structures which are the molecules of proteins.

H E A T One thing, however, all the multitude of organic molecules have in common: they are

all combustible, i.e. they have an affinity for oxygen. When oxidized they release an average of about IOO kilocalories of heat for each 10 grams of carbon they contain. Thus, all organic matter contains a considerable amount of ‘ free ’ energy, available for conversion into mechanical motion, heat, electricity or light, by gradual or sudden combination with oxygen. Such oxidations are the mainspring of life; without them no heart could beat; no plant could grow upward in defiance of gravity; no amoeba could swim; no sensation could speed along a nerve; no thought could flash into the brain of a meteorologist. for there would be no meteorologist and no atmosphere as we know it.

PHOTOSYNTHESIS Xot only are scientists unable to duplicate photosynthesis (the process by which

matter is brought up from the simplicity and inertness of the inorganic world, to the complexity and reactivity which are the essence of life) but they have not been able to clevise any half-way efficient method of converting inert inorganic matter into energy-rich forms by means of visible light.

S U M M A R Y When we speak of the atmosphere then, we speak of an envelope of gases largely

A self-created chemical environment which connects all I t is

To imagine that there can ever be a valid science of meteorology

manufactured by living forms. living things and which maintains a continual give-and-take relationship with them. a biological pkenomenon. withoiit reference to its biological origin and function, is fantastic.

CORRELATION Correlations have been made between unusual weather cycles and periods of inter-

national tension. These were unconvincing because it was difficult to know which was cause and which effect. Sunspots for instance might influence both weather and psy- chology. To demonstrate that there is not only a chemical interchange between living forms and the atmosphere, but also a direct energy interchange through the medium of an unidentified field, interpenetrating the atmosphere, it would be necessary to start with an explanation of the organization of the complex organic molecules.

ATOMS Quantum mechanics visualize space as containing about twenty interpenetrating fields.

Each brings forth its own elementary particle or energy quantum. These are: the neutrino; electron: positron; positive mu meson; negative mu meson; kappa meson; proton; antiproton; neutron; antineutron; positive V particle; negative V particle;

396

neutral V particle; photon; positive pi meson; negative pi meson; neutral pi meson; tau meson.

The nuclei of atoms are made up of some ninety-two different combinations of these elementary particles (excluding the new elements formed by science); it is these varying combinations of particles which create the atomic fields in which the electrons whirl in their orbits.

LIVING ATOMS

To account for the complexity of the atomic organizations in the organic world and the properties, different from those of inorganic organizations, it seems to me that the only place we could look would be in the nucleus of the organic atom. In short, we would have to suppose that ' living ' atoms had in their nuclei an additional particle not yet identified.

THE FIELD

We cannot imagine a particle without a field. Hence the theory put forth by the writer of a bio-physical field interpenetrating the atmosphere on the same basis as the other quantum fields. This article cannot give a full exposition of the theory, but sufficient to say here that if such a field exists, it should propagate the impulses sent by a human brain in the same way that the electromagnetic field propagates the impulses of a radio transmitter.

THE CLOUD DEMONSTRATION Brain to brain experiments (telepathy) have been made which seemed convincing, but

it was desirable to devise an experiment which was controllable, repeatable and measurable. After much experimentation the Cloud Experiment was developed. A clear day is chosen on which there is little wind, and when there are rather small, well integrated cumulus clouds. The operator turns his back while the observers select a group of three or more of these clouds, and a photograph is taken of the group. Then a single cloud is selectee! from this group to serve as a ' target ' and the operator is asked to turn around, the ' target is pointed out to him, and he tries to dissolve it by an act of will involving a certain technique. Pictures are taken a t regular intervals of a few seconds, and the experiment is concluded when the ' control clouds ' have disintegrated naturally or lost their identity by merging with others.

The remaining clouds of the group serve as controls.

RESULTS Before giving a public demonstration, I completed over five hundred successful

demonstrations. The public demonstrations in Canada, Mexico and elsewhere, received world-wide publicity, and a group of American scientists, after being given the technique, verified its authenticity by several months of intensive experimentation. They then devised laboratory techniques by which they could continue in the laboratory, where methods of applying the principle in their own field (of aviation) are under development. The implications of the experiment are, of course, tremendous, and perhaps equal in importance the discovery of my countryman (Lord Rutherford) which made possible the development of nuclear physics.

DEVELOPMENT Now I have spent a lifetime in equipping myself mentally to conduct the investigations

which led to the development of the cloud experiment. There have been no scholarships, grants, or endowments, but I have earned through my own efforts the funds which enabled me to return time after time to various universities for additional work on subjekts pertinent to the concept, and to buy the necessary laboratory animals and equipment for research. So I am certainly under no obligation to make my discoveries available to any particular country.

THE COMMONWEALTH As a New Zealander, however, I hoped to see the development of this concept take

place within the Commonwealth, and that England, who has in the past fostered such a large share of the great revolutionary discoveries upon which our civilization ~ m , would be the logical place to come to. An American group, as I have said, with characteristic vision and enthusiasm were already at work on the developmental phase.

' SCIENTIFIC INTEREST ' My efforts to interest British scientists did not meet with success. The director of

research at TeSldington was appealed to. He replied that ' he had no authority to initiate investigations ; other government sources were contacted with approximately similar results. Now in the last analysis, the scientists are the servants of the people, not the

397

reverse, so I decided to awaken public interest through direct public demonstratiom. As a matter of fact, there are no experts to be called in as observers. Any intelligent layman with a camera and a watch is as competent to observe the cloud demonstration, as a meteorologist. In fact he may be even more competent, for he is less likely to be pre- judiced, and to take Mr. Scorer's attitude as expressed in his article in your October issue:

Clearly they were eating out of his hand; they had t o eat out of *ne.'

So I gave a series of demonstrations on Hampstead Heath for the weekly magazine Mr. Scorer speaks of in his article. The journalist sent to cover the demonstrations was a highly intelligent and extremely cautious Scot; the camera man, an ex-airman who had specialized on aerial photography. In addition, there were four very objective and highly trained technologists from Associated-Rediffusion. All of these men were professionals who had been trained to impartially observe and to record their observations. All of these demonstrations were properly controlled, timed and photographed. They were all successful.

Page 320: Page 321: ' Could Dr. A. knock the top off that pinnacle by staring at it ?

THE SCORER INCIDENT

Following the above series of demonstrations my publisher invited me to lunch with him a t his club before catching my train back to Devon ?here I live. It was during this luncheon that a journalist hurried in with the ' good news that the meteorologists over at the Imperial Institute were eager for a demonstration right then . . . I immediately arose, delighted that a t last some British scientists with vision, had become interested. SO we drove to the Imperial Institute . . . and met Mr. Scorer.

' SCIEXTIFIC DETACHMENT ' Scorer made the flat statement that ' he wouldn't believe the experiment if I were

successful a hundred times ', and my publisher urged me to leave, as the man was obviously prejudiced and had no intention of participating in a scientific experiment , . . his intention was very obviously to discredit the whole thing . . . to ' make the other witnesses eat out of his hand ' as he himself so eloquently put it in his article.

T H E EXPERIMENT

In my association with other scientists, I had often heard men speak in this way a t the beginning of an experiment, but I have also seen this attitude melt into eager interest when the experiment succeeded. So I decided that perhaps I coulcj, despite the heavy lunch, give a demonstration sufficient to convince Scorer that there is really something to it ' and by that awaken the interest of other meteorologists. So we climbed numerous flights of stairs and out on a narrow cat-walk on the roof of the building.

T H E SKY The sky was dark with great turbulent cloud masses and there was a high wind. An

impossible day for a demonstration.

T H E ' TARGET ' Scorer pointed to a rather large tight ball-shaped cloud which appeared in a patch of

blue: ' Let's see you dissolve that one.' ' Oh well, it would have broken down anyway,' said Scorer. Next he pointed to a cloud bank, boiling and very obyiously building up, and to another above it, obviously in the process of dis- integrating: Both masses were several miles long by more than half a mile thick.

In 30 seconds the cloud disappeared.

that one will be the control.'

T H E RESULT

Despite the fact, the build-up of the target cloud was halted and it slowly commenced to disintegrate, though the ' control ' (which was naturally disintegrating) did so before it. Then Scorer with a sneer suggested that I ' knock the pinnacle off a building '.

CONCLUSION

I confess to a certain amount of sympathy with Scorer. I should not under any circumstances have put any man ' on the spot ' by stampeding him into witnessing a demonstration that he had not been adequately prepared for ahead of time; it was most unfair . . . but I had no idea that the whole thing was just a journalist's over-enthusiastic manaeuvre.

398

SINCE Since the Scorer incident, I have given more than twenty successful demonstrations

Some of these were televised and others reported before qualified and objective witnesses. in full with photographs in Picture Post issue of 30 June 1956.

REPLY BY DR. SCORER Before commenting on Dr. Alexander’s article I have an apology to make. I referred

to ‘ reporters ’ in my article. I applied this word to all those who had arrived at Imperial College (not Imperial Institute) with Dr. Alexander. In fact, there was only one reporter from the magazme present and what was said about ‘ eating out of his hand ’ and ‘ Thank God I had a classical education . . . ’ certainly did not refer to him. There were, among others, representatives of Dr. Alexander’s publisher present. The only reporter present took objective and most commendable attitude, and, as I indicated, recommended his magame not to publish anything. But what I wrote was a correct record (written the same day) of my feelings at the time of the encounter, when I did not know who was a journalist and who was not; and these feelings were partly prompted by having been grossly misreported by a daily newspaper on the subject of rainmaking some time ago. The article does not represent my views about journalists in general.

Dr. Alexander’s theory has no quantitative basis; it is sim ly a crude qualitative analogy with electromagnetic theory with a bit of mystery addeb: He gives no reasons why the dissolution of clouds should be possible: nor, if i t is possible, why it should be impossible to move solid objects, particularly organic ones.

According to the Picture Post (Robertson 1956) article to which he refers he cannot work through binoculars or in mirrors (so the mechanism is n:t optical), and ‘ the solar plexus is the main storage battery for the kind of energy he uses .

He says he cannot affect cirrus clouds and can do almost nothing with stratus clouds. It is obvious why this is so, according to my explanatio:: such clouds do not naturally disappear quickly, and the causes are well understood. The reason, he believes, is that these are not charged with polarised electricity ’ (Robertson Zoc. cit.). He has no evidence that parts of a stratus cloud are different electrically from parts of a small cumulus, and apparently does not know that cirrus behaves dierently because it is an ice cloud.

He gives no references to properly documen?d evidence for his claims because they do not exist. has published nothing on this subject. According to Parsons (1956) Dr. Alexander made a claim at a meeting in Hampstead to have given over 500 demonstrations but explained later in a letter that only four were public ones.

Of course a scientist who thinks he has an explanation of a phenomenon is prejudiced against theories which seem to him to be nonsenset and there is nothing to be ashamed of. Since it was clear to me that Dr. Alexander’s theory was not based on any common ground that we could accept, then why not be honest and say that whatever happened in the test his explanation certainly would not do ? My view has not changed since reading his article. Before his visit to London in May, he told Parsons that he was not at thh stage interested in pure research and stated frankly that he proposed to use the approach of publicity.

He made no complaint to me before his demonstration in May that the weather was unsuitable, but complained afterwards. There was between three- and five-eighths of

It was not I who suggested ‘ that one ’ as the target (my account written just after the incident is correct and Dr. Alexander’s is not in this respect). The cloud in question did not disappear in 30 seconds, but was in fact the one he subsequently failed to disperse quickly.

Dr. Alexander and those who agree with him clearly do not understand that any impartial observer is not good enough for a test of this kind. Most scientists h:ve never watched the behaviour of cumulus clouds, and it is not easy to define ’ a cloud and say when it has dissolved, as my series of photographs (Weather, October 1956) shows. People who do not know how clouds behave do not know how to observe them: no reputable scientific experiment is conducted by observers who have no training in what to look for. In the Picture Post case the target cloud came in half: one half soon disappeared, the other half continued to grow, and there was nothing unusual in its behaviour-nor xn Dr. Alexander’s in choosing the half that dissolved I

According to Parsons, several people have found themselves pOssessed of Dr. Alexander’s power, and of course many of them find that no effort on their part is required. It exbausts Dr. Alexander. Dr. Alexander has taught us nothing about clouds but he has

Why should the eyes be the agency for his powers?

The ‘ group of American scientists

‘ fair weather cumulus.

399