Subject: Re: Sophistry 103 (was: I know that!)
From: patrick@gryphon.psych.ox.ac.uk (Patrick Juola)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 10:24:56 GMT
In article <328FA202.C5E@nwu.edu> brian artese writes:
>>> Since the only things that we actually see or hear are
>>> signifiers, the burden rests on your shoulders to
>>> prove the existence of transcendent messages. You claim
>>> that the existence of these are a necessary inference.
>>> They are certainly not.
>>
>> Well, this is a semi-empirical claim. Fortunately, it's an old and
>> well-tested one. Rather than badly summarize twenty years of
>> empirical work into a single paragraph, I'll simply refer you to a
>> classic summation : _Key Papers in the Development of Information
>> Theory_, David Slepian, Ed. New York:IEEE Press (1974).
>
>I don't really have time for more homework, and I suspect you don't
>either: So why don't we talk about something we've both read? I
>can't imaging anything more pertinent to our conversation than
>Ferdiand de Saussure, the 'father of modern linguistics,' and his
>_Course in General Linguistics_.
As it happens, I've not read de Saussure as he's largely been replaced
by Noam Chomsky as the "father of modern linguistics." Welcome to
the 20th century.
>> Why can only things with form be mapped? A mapping is simply
>> a relation;
>
>A relation of...?
A relation. Full stop. I don't even have a text lying around to
give you a definition -- I abandoned my junior high school algebra
texts years ago. Informally, it's an asserted relationship between
a domain and a range.
>
>>; there's no reason, either practically or philosophically,
>> for the domain or the range to be restricted to sensible
>> objects. If you accept the existence of non-sensible "things"
>
>But I don't; a non-sensible 'thing' could only be an essence, which
>is purely the product of conceptualization. Comparing essences to
>historical objects is comparing apples to hedgehogs.
Well, in this case, I don't think I have anything further to say,
as we parted company at about William of Occam.
>It's clear that when you talk about 'mapping non-sensible messages,'
>you're using the idea of mapping as a metaphor. You're not talking
>about actual mapping, which can only describe that which has shape.
Um... Yes, it's a metaphor in the sense that I'm not describing
drawing a physical map with scale bars and north at the top.
It's also been a semi-standard metaphor for a couple of centuries
now -- tell me, when someone says that the price of milk is going up,
do you envision little price tags floating into the stratosphere?
>>> The reason you want to hang onto the idea that
>>> there is something 'beyond' signifiers is because
>>> you're aware that 'what' you want to say can be
>>> expressed by more than one articulation. You see
>>> that there are several ways of expressing something.
>>> The problem is with this 'something' (this 'what')
>>> which *automatically presumes* that 'what you want
>>> to say' is a singular entity.
>>
>> Um, again, you're simply wrong in your assertions. Have you taken
>> any mathematics in your life?
>
>Crying 'error' without pointing it out amounts to gibbering. How are
>these assertions wrong? And my math training? I simply don't
>follow. But believe me, I'm perfectly 'qualified' to argue with you.
Okay. First of all, you're not, since you don't even understand
the terms "mapping" and "relation" as used in standard mathematical
parlance. Second, I'll try to bring you up to speed here.
A relation is simply an association between elements of one set (the
domain) with another (the range). There's no necessity that this be
1-1 in either direction; I can, in the general case, associate any
or all domain elements with any or all range elements, either
individually or by subsets (since the power set of a set is
simply a set itself). An easy example of a relation is the relation
between a person and his/her senator -- easy because it's nice and
intuitive, and also not 1-1. Every US citizen has two senators (usually),
every senator has a whole slew of contituents.
The nice thing about sets is that they handily blur the singular/multiple
distinction. Instead of dealing with the relation between a senator
and his constituent as indiviual linkages, I can simply take the set
of the constituents and build a new relation between the senator and
the *set* (formal mathematicians have terms for this sort of stuff; I'm
simply blurring it here.)
Now, the first thing that I would like to point out is that the set,
itself, is non-sensible; there's no measurable property of set-ness that
distinguishes the "set" from the collection of its elements, but it's
certainly reasonable to talk about "the citizens of New Jersey" as a
unit. I suggest that the burden of proof is on *you* to demonstrate
that the non-sensible "thing" that is the "set" described above doesn't
exist. Similarly, what is this thing called "you" distinct from the
individuated atoms that compose it?
The second thing I would like to point out is that, as I stated before,
the use of this sort of power-set construction blurs the distinction
between singular and plural in a very definite direction -- I can
treat a multiple object as a singular for purposes of
association/reference, but not the opposite.
So -- non-sensible objects exist; the test of whether or not a set
can be discussed meaningfully is not a question of existence, but
whether the concept of the set is shared between two partners in
communication. The fact that words carry multiple meanings and that
people can have multiple intents is not a problem, since one can simply
bundle these things into sets and take the representation relationship
accordingly. Now, if you want to try telling me that you're qualified
to discuss these sorts of points, go ahead. I'm already expecting
flamage from Mr. Meron about how badly I oversimplified to the point
of lying.
Patrick
Subject: Infinite spaces
From: Devin Harris
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 02:47:51 -0800
News
I believe that the time of spacetime is not a measure of time at all.
Spacetime is instead a progression of static spaces, or what I call
spatial fields, which themselves exist for an infinite extension of time.
I believe what we perceive to be time is actually spatial change,
very much like Richard Feynman's Sum over histories description of time
as a direction in space. I also believe that volume is both positive and negative in
nature, in respect to one of two directions of time that occur.
I plan to publish a book this spring entitled Everything Forever, and
I have just completed a website, entitled A Tour of the Infinite.
I propose that there exists an infinite set of spaces, in which
there are three extreme conditions or spaces possible
ultimately: infinite positive density and infinite negative density, as
well as zero density flat space.
One direction of time
begins from an infinite positive density, evolves into matter, and moves
toward zero density, creating a positive volume in which negative density
is observed only as a point particle (electron). The other identical but
opposite direction of time begins from infinite negative density and evolves
into anti-matter, toward the same neutral zero density state, or space.
The two spacetimes are interconnected and both end at a total density
equilibrium, flat space. Essentially, my theory called Convergence explains
that spacetime is moving toward greater symmetry and balance.
Anyone interested in the infinite is welcome to visit my new website.
http://members.aol.com/spfields1/scitour/intro.htm
Sincerely, Devin Harris
Subject: Re: freedom of privacy & thoughts
From: caesar@copland.udel.edu (Johnny Chien-Min Yu)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 06:29:02 -0500
When should the law enforcement officers have begun to use the
mind control equipments on American people?
(attachment)-- "New world Order & ELF Psychotronic Tyranny"
by C. B. Baker (published in Youth Action Newsletter December 1994)
==========================================================================
The 3/23/94 WASHINGTON POST reported: "The Pentagon and the Justice
Department have agreed to share state-of-the-art military technology with
civilian law enforcement agencies, including exotic 'non-lethal' weapons."
"In March, 1993, the National Institute of Justice [NIJ]--(an office of
Justice Department), issued a report titled: "NIJ Initiative On
Less-Than-Lethal Weapons." The Department is now encouraging
local and state police organizations to utilize Soviet-KGB psychotronic,
electromagnetic and mind control weapons against their local citizenry.
Targets for these KGB weapons include "domestic disturbances" meaning
that mind-control devices are even to be utilized against family arguments."
The reports [the NIJ report] stated: "Short-term research will be
completed TO ADOPT MILITARY TECHNOLOGIES TO USE BY DOMESTIC LAW
ENFORCEMENT...including LASER, MICROWAVE, AND ELECTROMAGNETIC" WEAPONS.
DEFENSE ELECTRONICS reported that a Richmond, Virginia firm,
Psychotechnologies (believed to be closely tied to the CIA and the FBI)
has purchased the American rights to the Soviet mind-control devices.
==========================================================
With numerous indication and reports such as the above, this proves that
the state & local law enforcement officers are also mind control
operators.
After conducting extensive research, it is clear that state & local
law enforcement officers are actively involved in mind control
organization and many of them are also mind control machine operators
(please refer to previous articles). Now, the focus of the discussion
should be shifted to when the state & local law enforcement agencies
began to use mind control equipments & technologies.
Before making the deduction based on the information available, it is
important to carefully review some vital information.
The information contained in the following article, "Remote Mind Control
Technology" (from the book _Secrets & Suppressed_), should be of a
serious public concern. I would like to highlight some of important points.
(attachment)-"REMOTE MIND CONTROL" by Anna Keeler
========================================================================
According to a 1984 U.S. House of Representatives report, a large
number of stores throughout the country use high frequency transmitted
words (above the range of human hearing) to discourage shoplifting.
Stealing is reported to be reduced by as much as 80% in some cases.
(...............)
It is now known that applied biological (and other) frequencies can also be
used as direct "information inputs" (e.g., of feeling or emotion) and to
reinforce brain rhythms associated with conditioning and information
processing. One way to get such a signal into a human may be through
use of a high frequency carrier frequency. Results of research into information
processing, unconscious processes, decision making, memory processes, and
evoked brain potentials would likely be exploited or integrated in an
interdisciplinary system.
........
[Later, she went on to added] Covert technological influence is not
so foreign to the American way of life as one may think. *The above report
concern about a 1984 U.S. House of Representatives hearing that high
frequency audio transmissions are applied, for in stance, in some
department stores to prevent t[Aheft (one East Coast department store
chain was reported to have saved S600,000 over a nine-month period), and
in some grocery stores with the result that employee induced cash
shortages significantly decreased and employees are better mannered.
In other words, as Helms (CIA director in 60s) wrote of, verbal
messages are delivered at frequencies above human hearing. Technology
for commercial applications is relatively sophisticated (one studio uses
a "layered" approach and 31 channels in preparing tapes; some employ a
"dual coding" approach, integrating scientific knowledge of information
processing modes of the two brain hemispheres, and others use techniques
where a consumer is spoken to as a three year old child). There is no
U.S. law specifically regulating these types of transmission (over radio
and TV a Federal Communication Commission "catch all" provision might
apply).
If industry uses undetectable audio transmissions to meet security
concerns, it seems that the military and CIA would exploit the same
technology and would have developed much more sophisticated technology
for applications. The public's conception of "subliminal" [programming]
is naive compared to capabilities.
==============================================================
The excerpt above actually discussed two different devices:
1. Mind machine
2. Microwave Voice Device.
I want to emphasize this following quote contain in above excerpt which
confirm the above assertion.
"It is now known that applied biological (and other) frequencies can
also be used as direct "information inputs" (e.g., feeling or emotion)
and reinforce brain rhytms associated with conditioning & informatiopn
processing".
This quote shows that House of Representative Hearing concludes that this
equipment should be a kind of mind machine (because it can input idea or
emotion [feeling] to human beings). This conclusion should be correct.
In the article, it was reported: Richard Helms (former CIA director) wrote
that "the verbal messages are delivered at frequencies above human hearing."
The device referred by the former director Helms should be the microwave
voice equipment.
Why?
The above information indecated that "the verbal messages are delivered
at the frequency above human hearing."
Could he be referring to ultrasound?
No! that's because ultrasound cannot be heard by human being, so how
could they deliver the verbal message! Therefore, it must be the
microwave voice device instead of ultrasound.
In the case of microwave voice, it can be used to send message directly
into the target's brain (and the brain would translate (demodulate) the
microwave into voice - this phenonmenon was first discovered by Dr. Frey
at Cornell, and it was later successfully developed by Dr. Joseph Sharp
of Walter Reed Army Institute of Research for military application in
1973 [please refer to Dr. Robert Becker's book _The Body Electric_).
So, messages can be delievered via microwave voices to employees or
customers. Yet, since it was delievered through sound vibration
(completely by pass the ear), one do not "hear" it. Therefore, it would
not attract the attention of others.
What is frightening is that these words or messages can be
transmitted via microwaves (or radio frequencies) by covert method
(directly into one's mind) with ill intention (to harm). This method
might be used to alter the target's state of mind (for example: to
cooperate with the operators to drive another person mad or be driven mad
himself).
According to the above information and analysis, this issue
indeed should be a serious concern to every American. Reviewing the
information concerning the 1984 House of Representative Hearing, it
indicates that many owners of large U.S. business stores might have
already cooperated with local authorities in mind control before 1984.
The store owners might have been persuaded by the authorities to
incorporate these "high frequency transmitter" in their store to prevent
shoplifting. Without cooperation between the store owners and the currupted
authorities, the store owners cannot obtain such high-tech equipments.
Also through such cooperation, the authorities (mind control
group) can deceive the store owners and install more powerful or
secret transmitters (such as install EMR mind machine equipments [or
invisible radiation weapon as the emitters of microwave or chronal gun,
etc.] in these stores without the knowledge of these business owners.).
Also, these actions would still be unknown to the general publics.
Beside installing the microwave voices equipment (audio transmissions)
the authorities might encourage or even offer these business owners or
managers to use the emotion & feeling input device (mind machine
equipment) in their stores to manage (and spy on) their employees or
customers. If the above deductions are all correct, then a lot of
stores' owners or managers have used the mind machine & microwave voices
equipments for a long time (before 1984)
Which authorities can easily obtain cooperation from businessmen? I
would deduce these authorities should be the state & local law
enforcement officers. This is because state & local law enforcement
officers often comes into contact with local businessman (so these
business could be better protected). Therefore, the local area security
agencies have numerous chances to formally communicate with the local
businessman (store managers or owners).
Some people may ask that why these business owners want to cooperate
with the local law enforcements officers (if they are also the mind
control operators)?
I would explain this with the example of Taiwan. Based on my
understanding, those police officers would tell these local store
owners into thinking by cooperating (installing mind machine in their
stores and working with the local police) the crime rate would drop.
This would not only help the authorities, this would also protect the
investments of these owners, and help them manage the empolyee. So, it
is a good deal with both business owners and local law enforcement.
Therefore, the store owners would happily and eagerly to cooperate with
the authorities and allow police to install their secret equipments in
their stores ( Some emitters are installed without the owners knowing
because these emitters are invisible wave weapon of the mind control
operators' weapon. The operators only trust those people who they have
complete control over - the control of these people's lives. So, if these
owners would try to betray the operators, these owners would be
retailated immediately).
If they already cooperate with the mind control organization, what is the
true condition of our society?
This type of cooperation can help the authority (law enforcement
officers) to introduce these secret mind control equipments into society
without having to deal with hostile oppositions from the average
citizens or regulations of the government. It can also help the
authorities to build electric surveillience system in these business
stores and then network them all together to an electric surveilliance
system that can spy the entire country.
Some owners of large stores might be suggested to hire special
security mangers to deal with such thing & this person might be also
recommended by the authorities.
These cooperators will be the EMR mind machine users who can spy on
anyone (employee, customer, and even the owner), should the need arise.
Furthermore, these cooperators might even help to drive a subject mad
by using these equipments (deliver words to employee to play the mind
game or focus waves [radiation or sonic] to torture a subject in stores)
which network their electric surveilliance system from a local area to
entire nation.
That's why the mind control organization can easily isolate any victim,
drive a victim mad, and cause victims to lose their job.
However, these kinds of activities have obviously violated the Constitution.
So if these cooperators (managers or stores' owners) cooperate to use
the mind machine and the microwave voice equipments, they have been
asked that never allow anyone to make the security leak. The first rule
of mind control is to get rid of anyone who might cause the security leak.
Therefore, once these cooperaters cannot control a target (out of
control) or the target is aware of these equipments, these cooperators
must assist to drive this target mad or even help to "get rid" of this
target. If the stores'owners or managers have used the mind control
equipments and become full cooperators, they will do the same thing.
Here's an excerpt of the report "Microwave Harassment & Mind Control
Experimentation" (Juliene McKinnley, Association of National Security Alumni)
which documented several cases of abuse of mind control equipments and
the harassment of law abiding American citizens. The cases documented in
this report proves that my deduction is correct.
=====================================================
Progressive financial impoverishment, brought on by termination of
the individual's employment, and compounded by expenses associated
with the harassment.
The majority of those now in contact with the Project_educated, white
collar professionals_have lost their jobs. Termination of employment
in many of these cases involved prefatory harassment by the employer
and co-workers, which coincided with the other overt forms of
harassment discussed above.
These overt harassment tactics are being described as recurrent, non
sequential and overlapping. As noted above, the overt harassment
continues even after the electronic harassment commences.
===============================================================
So if the above deduction are all correct, then law enforcement officers
should have used the mind control equipment prior to 1984.
I believe that many of the freedom guarntee under the U.S.
Constitution has been sacrificed by the mind (machine) control
surveilliance system for a long time. In numerous reports and personal
accounts, it have been shown that the general publics have lost their
privacy, and anyone can be easily tracked or drive mad. These operators
would go as far as to manipulate other peoples' health and lives in order
to secretly eliminate their opponents or those people whom the career
officers (operators) dislike (please see my previous postings).
A personal account of his own persecution is that of Mr. Fratus. He had
written a extensive letter to about what he encountered with the mind
machine at the Utah state prison in 1988. He stated that there was a
device that could be used to read all of his thoughts from a distance
(without any physical contact).
Some people might say that Mr. Fratus was a prisoner, so he might falsely
accuse the law enforcement officer of using the mind machine on him.
Such kind of idea is obvious illogical. Why? If Mr. Fratus tried to
falsely accusation, then he should make some more believable accusations
(such as violence attack or torture, starving him, inhumane treatment,
etc.) which people will more readily accept.
Then why did he use mind machine as the excuse?
The only explanation is that the EMR mind machine truly exists and had
been used on him. So he rather tell an improbable truth than a
believable lie. When a person tell a lie, he will logically
use an easily believable story to achieve his goal. It also helps to
avoid the suspicion of others (since the liar might accidentaly make a
contradictory statement to his story, he would want to avoid questions as
much as possible).
Since Mr. Fratus dared to make such an unlikely claim and wrote an
extensive letter to explain the mind machine, it has shown that he has the
courage to face questioning from others. It is therefore logical to
believe that he should be telling the truth.
Furthermore, since House Hearing in 1984 showed that law enforcement
officers have used the mind control equipments and cooperated with the
stores' managers or owners before 1984, it can confirm that Mr. Fratus
indeed told the truth. This would mean that Mr. Fratus did indeed
encountered such devices in prison and was used as a form of genuine pig.
Comparing Mr.Fratus's letter with the House Hearing and other informaion, it
proves that the EMR mind machine should have been invented and
transfered to law enforcement officers for a long time (before 1984).
In August 1971, there is a entire nation surveillance security
system program proposal submitted to the President Nixon. It proposed to
"wire" every "house", "car", and "boat" in America. The plan included a
blueprint for a government- operated propaganda system via a TV network
that would have linked every state, city, and home.
(See page 181 on the"Uncloaking the CIA")
Although this program wasn't accepted At that time. It did prove that
they did have this plan and should have the technology to accomplish it for
a long time. How could they propose to "wire" every house, car and boat
in American? It must use the radio wave or low radiation wave to network
these objects (house, car, boat, etc.), otherwise, they cannot achieve
this goal. This program has proven that these security officers have the
technology to use the low radiation wave or radio wave to "wire" the
house, car, boat, etc. (via a TV network that would have linked every
city, state, home) since 1971.
In 1980, the US Senate passed the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980.
This Bill include establishing no standards for covert operations or
employment of academics, clergymen or journalists as spies or informers
and no penalty for the public disclosure of agents working for the US.
(See page 73 on "CIA"-by Brian Freemantle)
The above Bill already prove that the Intelligence Agencies were
allowed to build the entire nation surveillance system ( as the entire
nation surveillance system plan of the former President Nixon) if they
could operate it covertly (What a coincidence, the GWEN system also has
begun to be built since 1980. A tower of this system can prove [emit]
VLF to 360 cycle degree in 250- 300 miles distances).
Currently, low rediation wave or microwave of smart radar can be used
to spy (detect) or track people. The low radiation wave system has been
used in airport to check people for weapon. According to ABC news report
(7/22/96), these low radiation system display the shape of the
passenger's body on computer terminals and help identify any conceal
weapons. Therefore, if anyone carry weapon, the computer screen will
show where the weapon is concealed on the body. So the security officers
can easily find the weapon.
The above GWEN system also emit the VLF, a kind of low radiation waves.
These VLF (low radiation waves) will be broadcast from the 300-500 feet
high towers to hover above the ground (rather radiating into the
atomosphere) because it frequency is special selected around the 150-175
Khz (plase see detail on page 301 of "Cross Current" by Dr. Robert Becker).
Why?
Why they need the low radiation wave hug the ground instead of radiating
into the atmosphere?
If these low radiation wave are radiating into atmosphere, these low
radiation wave are not used in the GWEN area. However, these low
radiation waves are hovering above the ground from the 300-500 feet high air
(the hight of towers).
Therefore, you can figure out that the low radiation waves will totally
cover our entire nation from the 500 feet above ground to the ground (it
can reach higher than the Empire building of New York) to the ground (or
go as low as the ground of the basement of your house).
Therefore, these operators can just turn on the switch of the local
central mind machine station to remote watch people's privacy at home
(even in people's basement) or in public building (people's office).
This kind surveilliance system will use the power beam system technology
(see detail on my previous article) to remotely control the electromagnetic
wave to network (wireless) the equipments (new designed electric parts)
installed in every home. Some of these new electric parts are used to
react a person's bio-electric with the difference of low radiation wave in
any room (in order to surveilliance people's activities).
Some of new electric parts of building are designed as the emitters which
can be remotely tunr on to beam the invisible electronic wave on people.
These very low radiation frequencty (VLF) emitted by GWEN system can also
be and turned into DC current to power any hidden emitter (by using the
technology of power beam system--see detail below).
(attachment)
=========================================
There is a patent of "power beaming system." (see page 116 on the
"ANGELS DON'T PLAY THIS HAARP")
Patent Number: 5,068,669
According to this patent, the pesent invention relates in general
to the transfer of energy by means of electromagnetic waves to power a
remote device.
This idea is to convert microwaves to DC power, which can be done
very effeciently and cost effectively with the right kind of
transmission system capable of focusing the power into a narrow beam.
===========================================
Therefore, this GWEN system can also function as an energy source to
power the (emitters) weapon of mind control operators.
These hidden emitters so can be remotely control to beam invisible
(sound or radiation) wave to injure people.
That's because VLF is the another style of electromagnetic wave.
The enclosed information can prove that the invisible wave weapon
(so called "nonlethal weapon") are the intentionally desinged by
the government to against the terrorist and drugtraffickers.
However, these inviible wave weapons have been abused by the mind
control operators to manipulate people's lives and supress the law
abiding citizrens who against the interests of mind control or
operators.
This information is a report on nonlethal technologies, issued by
the Council on Foreign Relations.
(attachment)---See page 180 on _ANGELS DON'T PLAY THE HAARP_1995
by Jeane Manning & Dr. Nick Begich)
----------------------------------------------
This report points out that , "The Nairobiv Convention, to which
the United States is a signastory, prohiibits the broadcast of
electronic signals into a sovereign state without its consent in
peace time.
This report opens discussion of use of these weapons against
"terrorists" and "drug traffickers". The CFR report recommends
that this be done secretly so that the victims do not know where
the attack is from, or if there even is an attack! There is a
problem with this approach. The use of these weapons, even against
these kinds of individuals, may be in violation of United States
law in that it presume guilt rather than innocence. In other words,
the POLICE, CIA, DEA, OR OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT ORGANIZATION become
THE JUDGE, JURY AND EXCECUTIONER.
-------------------------------------------------
The above information also proves that the invisible wave weapon are
specially designed for the law enforcement to against the terorists
and durgtrafficekers by government.
It further proves that the invisible wave weapon users are also the
law enforcement.
comparing with above facts, the local law enforcement are the
basic unit of mind control for a long time.
Another information can also tell us the loal law enforcement officers
shoukd be the "elite group" who are respondsible to keep people under
close surveilloiance and control.
(attachment)-see page 200 on _Angels Don't Play This HAARP_ by Dr.
Nick Begich & Jeane Manning
===================================
As early as 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski, later National Security Advisor
to President Jimmy Carter, predicated a "more controlled and directed
society" would gradually appear, linked the technology. This society
would be dominated by an elite group which impresses voters by allegedly
superior scientific know-how.
Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite
would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest
modern techniques for inflencing public behavior and keeping society under
close surveillance and control. Technical and scientific momentum would
then feed on the situation it exploits. Brzezinski predicted
============================================
Comparing with Brzezinski's words, the local law enforcement officers are
the so called "elite group" who keep people under the close surveilince
and control.
This information also confirm that this mind control surveilliance
system indeed same as the (1971) entire nation surveillance security
system program which proposal submitted to the President Nixon. It
proposed to "wire" every "house", "car", and "boat" in America. The plan
included a blueprint for a government- operated propaganda system via a
TV network that would have linked every state, city, and home.
(See page 181 on the"Uncloaking the CIA")
Since this kind of urveilliance suystem should via a TV network that linke
every state, city, home,etc., it has also proven that the local law
enforcement officers are the selected "elite group" to carry out this
surveilliance job.
Baased on the above facts,the local law enforcement officers have been
the real master of people (mind control operators) for a long time.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Alan Yu
Do you really know yourself?
The first objective of mind control organization is to manipulate
people's health condition and lives in order to eliminate their
opponents or enemies. This objective has been secretly carried out since
the late of 1970s in Taiwan ( At that time they simply use the microwave
beam or low radio frequency modulation).
Only the truth will triumph over deception and last forever.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: lbsys@aol.com
Date: 18 Nov 1996 12:00:12 GMT
Im Artikel <56odpe$fpt@dwst13.wst.edvz.sbg.ac.at>, Anton Hutticher
schreibt:
>If you don't understand (or just detest) the concept of
>properties going continuously from one extreme to the
>other, [....] then you really will have trouble with
>scientific thinking. Best you avoid it.
That's actually moggin's highest goal - as well in the discussion with you
as well as with Mati, Matt and other's - but somehow neither of you wants
to accept that there are mystics in the todays world of the late 20th
century ;-).
Mystics, calling themselves de-constructionists (which pretends true
basical thinking, as taking things apart to really understand them sounds
elemenatry scientific, doesn't it?), but who are real 'destructionists' in
the bad sense of the word, just blowing smoke and trying to spread
confusion, while hoping to score points that way - or have you (or anyone
else) ever come across any clarifying or enlighting remark by moggin?
Something one would call a 'keeper', something, that other readers would
help to understand another tiny wee bit of our complicated world?
Instead moggin rather engages in the lowest, meanest personal attacks,
like this one:
moggin:
>>>Meaningless, since your idea of my "style" is absurd, and
>>>what you call "explanations" are just your favorite strawmen.
[there's no argument here, just accusations like 'absurd' and 'strawmen']
Anton:
>>We are bound to disagree.
[quite a polite answer to the above cited emotional attack IMO]
moggin:
>Maybe -- but you've never given any support for your interpretation.
[Illogical, one cannot 'support' one's own interpretation - but Anton has
a lot of inherent support for his interpretation by other posters, which
can be seen in various posts in various threads. It has been repeatedly
pointed out to moggin by different posters that his strange usage of words
is misleading, to say the least]
>Instead, you just keep bleating it in every direction, and repeating it
>in every post, while you steadfastly ignore the objections I've raised
[moggin didn't raise objections any better than 'absurd' and 'strawmen',
which cannot be counted as such]
> -- so there's no reason to agree with you at all. Nothing
>personal, Anton, but you're full of shit.
This is about as low, as a poor mind can get to, when running out of
arguments.
Yeah, I know, we should pity moggin, b/c he obviously needs professional
help in his rather poorly concealed rage, but there's days, when my
sympathy with attackers is so much lower than with the targets of their
attacks, that I overcome my laziness and take sides. moggin is the typical
example of the attacker claiming to be an innocent victim instead, quite a
pathological case indeed.
If ever the psychological departments will explore the idea of using
usenet posts to illustrate textbook models, moggin's posts sure will make
a classic case of an instable personality, not really crackpotty, but very
much on the brink, furious, when someone dares to disagree with him,
overly adulating, when finding real agreement (when once one of his
opponents seemingly conceded an error, he made a full turn, and,
surprisingly enough, commented, very much off topic, "BTW: I like your
sig", an incidence of affability unheard of moggin before, which also
separates him from other CPs like Archie Pu, who doesn't even like
agreement but barks at anyone).
Thus any further argument with moggin seems moot, as you either agree with
him (that's gonna be hard...), or accept, that he will stick with his
argument, even if it turns out, that he claimed 2+2 to be 5, as he will
never ever admit any error at all.
If you don't believe it, read back the curvature/2-D/3-D mapping problem
argument. He never conceded publically, that his original claim, the
mapping inaccurateness would stem from the earth being a 3-D object and a
map only 2-D, was plain wrong (and not in the sense he thinks Newton to be
wrong, but in the full sense of the word: totally wrong. And before he
starts any shouting: Anyone can use Dejanews and find out, that this
exactyl was his original claim and he only later learned about curvature
of 2-D objects as well as 3-D objects with flat surfaces like cubes or
cylinders being mapped on other surfaces with zero curvature without any
problems).
Yes, he silently revised his opinion and nowadays says things like "3-D in
connection with being round" (which is still wrong, as a cyilnder is
round, but it's surface is easy mappable on zero curvature maps) or the
like, just to conceal his total wrongness in the first place, but:
moggin will never stand up like the real honest debater, saying "Sorry,
and I stand corrected" - this word doesn't exist in his vocabulary, and on
behalf of the newbies I will remind the community once in a while of this
despicable insincerity, as long as he keeps attacking posters at
_sci.physics_ unjustified - honour when honour is due.
The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
__________________________________
Lorenz Borsche
Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to
be added to any commercial mailing list.
Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
Subject: Re: Hermeneutics and the difficulty to count to three...
From: moggin@mindspring.com (moggin)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 12:57:00 GMT
moggin@mindspring.com (moggin)
>>> I admit, it's hard for me to grasp the idea of a hill that's flat,
>>> but that's probably because I'm thinking of my sort of hills -- if
>>> you're giving the term your own definition, there's no reason in
>>> the world hills couldn't possess flatness as a characteristic. I
>>> wouldn't even call that a "loose" use of the word, since there's no
>>> larger notion of hilliness for me to measure by -- it's just a
>>> different way of using the word.
Anton Hutticher :
>>May I hazard a guess? (I think hazard is the right term here).
>>Could your difficulty stem from the following (and this is just my
>>unbridled speculation): You hold an object in your mind which has
>>"hilliness" as one of its characteristics, another one with "planeness"
>>and possibly one with "holeness". (Is a hole a reversed hill, btw. And
>>it should have been plane in my first post. I guess I was already
>>roaming the great plains, in my mind). Well, since "hilliness" etc are
>>ideal properties which cannot change there can not ever be a mix of
>>"hilliness" and "planeness" ranging from "100% hilliness, 0% planeness"
>>to "0% hilliness, 100% planeness".
moggin:
>> It's not half that complicated -- as I already explained, I'm using
"hill"
>> in the usual sense, where a flat hill is an oxymoron. If you want to give
>> the word another definition which allows for hills to be flat, you go ahead.
>> From the looks of it, though, you don't want to posit flat hills -- you're
>> just making the earth-shaking observation that some hills are tall, while
>> others are short. I can go along with that one. But in the ordinary sense
>>of the term, a perfectly flat plane ("100% planeness) doesn't qualify as
>> a hill -- in fact, "hillness" would be the common description of that kind
>> of landscape. [That should have said "hill-less" -- m.]
Anton:
>I want to posit that it makes sense to talk about "degenerate hills"
>with a "hilliness" of zero, just as it makes sense to talk about
>triangulums with height zero, looking like lines.
Fine. Do what you like. But why are you bothering me about it?
Anton:
>> >Which would also explain your troubles with the common and scientific usage
>> >of words like true, false, correct, incorrect...Just a platonic
speculation.
moggin:
>> Just an unnecessary explanation, like the one above, since I' m not having
>> any trouble with them -- I don't know what difficulties you're referring to,
>> but they're entirely yours.
Anton:
>If you don´t understand (or just detest) the concept of properties
>going continuously from one extreme to the other, like full day and night
>being the extremes and "day(li)ness" going from 100% to 0, true and
>false with truth going from 100% to 0, hill and hole, with "hilliness"
>going from 100% to 0 and dare I say "holyness" going opposite, then
>you really will have trouble with scientific thinking. Best you avoid it.
Good thing you said "if."
-- moggin
Subject: Re: what Newton thought
From: glong@hpopv2.cern.ch (Gordon Long)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 12:46:59 GMT
Gordon Long:
>
>+ So much discussion on such a trivial point! Anyway, Mati already
>+answered this one. You don't need to define "uniform motion" to define
>+an inertial reference frame. To give a simple example: take a rock,
>+hold it still, and let go. If the rock stays still, then you are in
>+an inertial reference frame. If the rock starts to move, then you are
>+not. No "uniform motion" involved.
>
[and, later]
>
>>You may not be able to perform it in practice (the question of local
>>vs. global comes up, as well as the fact that you have to wait an
>>infinite amount of time), but it can be performed in principle. It
>>can also be performed in practice to whatever experimental precision
>>you require. However, the first point is really the key one -- it
>>means that you can, in fact, define inertial frames without the type
>>of circular arguments you were using earlier.
-Mammel,L.H.:
>I find it incredible that you would expect anyone to believe that all
>this can be read into your original remarks. You said it was a trivial
>point! You are just trying to cover your tracks here.
>
Why do you find it so incredible? To me, it's pretty obvious.
Of course, I was assuming some prior knowledge about the nature of
experimental verification and the concept of proof. This is common
knowledge to most people (at least, most people in the scientific
community), but perhaps I'd better explain here.
When testing for a condition (such as seeing if a rock starts to
move), and obtaining a null result, the result is only as good as your
experimental precision. You can never conclusively prove that the
rock isn't accelerating, since your resolution is finite and you also
only have a finite amount of time in which to test. In other words,
the rock might be accelerating, but its acceleration is so small that
you can't see it; you might have to wait another minute (or hour, or
day, or millenium, etc.) before its motion becomes detectable.
None of this, however, invalidates the concept of ideal qualities or
their use in definitions; these ideal qualities are usually defined in
limiting cases of physical qualities. For example, an ideal conductor
is the same as a physical conductor in the limit of zero electrical
resistance (and also in the limit of zero anything-else-you-don't-want.)
Using these ideal qualities, you can say that an object is either
moving, or it is not, regardless of experimental precision. In other
words, assuming the concepts of position and time are well defined in
practical terms, there are precise definitions of velocity, acceleration,
etc. Note that these definitions are valid regardless of the fact that
you can never measure them with infinite experimental precision. (Of
course, things get a bit dicey when they become unmeasurable even in
principle, as in the case with QM, but that's a different issue and not
relevant here.)
So, given all this as prior knowledge, my original point was that the
concept of a Newtonian inertial frame is well defined; to be more specific,
it is not circular. Furthermore, I don't think of this definition as one
that is particularly difficult to understand (hence my use of the word
'trivial'). The concept of inertial frames, however, is nevertheless
extremely important and fundamental.
- Gordon
--
#include
Gordon Long | email: Gordon.Long@cern.ch
CERN/PPE |
CH-1211 Geneva 23 (Switzerland) |
Subject: Re: Flat hills
From: moggin@mindspring.com (moggin)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 13:33:08 GMT
106331.1520@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>>>I'm new to this business and apologise if I've sent this already (I got
>>>>an error message of some sort), but I'm interested by the concept of
>>>>flat hills. If you talk about flat hills then I don't immediately
understand
>>>>what you mean - I need to hear more. Perhaps you mean something
>>>>"ordinary" (say, a hill with a flat top) and that can be easily explained.
>>>>But if no amount of context makes it any clearer then communication
>>>>will grind to a halt. I will conclude that you are using either "flat" or
>>>>"hill" in a way which has nothing to do with the words as I know them.
matts2@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein)
>>>The original subject was generalization as in "General Relativity
>>>generalizes Classical Mechanics". The specific point was that
>>>rienmannian curved space as used by Einstein was a generalization of
>>>space and Euclidean flat space is a specific instance of this space.
>>>The metaphor of hills vs. plains was used. Moggin suggested that the
>>>generalization from plains was more plains. I (I think it was me, but
>>>I can be wrong) suggested that a better metaphor generalized from
>>>plains to hills. (I now realize I should have said from plains to
>>>valleys/plains/hills.) From that point the discussion has continued.
moggin:
>> Well, let's be clear -- "from plains to more plains" isn't the best
>>way to describe my example. I said that generalizing the concept of
>>plains would bring in prairie, tundra, etc.
Matt:
>I don't remember that. Do you have a reference like a post id? I can't
>find an article by you with either "tundra" or "prairie". And, btw, I
>accept either step as a reasonable generalization, from plains to
>valleys/plains/hills or from plains to prairie/tundra/desert. They
>just generalize around a different aspect. I don't, however, see going
>from plains to wider plains as a generalization.
It's identical to the case with hamburgers -- you really do see it as
a generalization (I'd venture to say) -- only it's one you've _already
made_, so you take it for granted.
Here's the exchange that we had about prairies -- I'm including the
context, so you can see how it came up.
* * *
[Matt:]
>:Ground with height is a more general concept than ground without
>:height. The height can range from negative through zero to positive.
>:That is a normal use of generalize.
[moggin:]
> In some circles it may be. But ordinary useage distinguishes
>between the concept of "a more general concept" and the concept of
>generalizing -- a distinction that the scientific use appears to lack.
>To generalize, in the ordinary sense, means, as I've explained before,
>to generalize _on_ a given concept -- not merely to introduce an idea
>of wider scope. Sure, you can analyze both hills and plains in terms
>of height, and view them as taller or shorter parts of the landscape.
>And you can call that "generalizing," if it pleases you. But you are
>not generalizing on the concept of "plains," which have flatness in
>their definition.
[Matt:]
>>To go from plains to wider plains does not generalize, it enlarges or
>>lengthens or increases.
[moggin:]
> Specifically, it widens, wouldn't you say? And that's a basic
>part of generalizing (in the ordinary sense of the term).
[Matt:]
:I think that in many ways this is at least an interesting a topic as
:the Newton one it comes from. I suggest that there are many ways to
:generalize an idea. And that it is particularly difficult to
:generalize from one example. So I could go from plains (flat spaces
:wtih plants) to farms, gardens, maybe swamps. Or I could go from plain
:to hills mountains, valleys.
[moggin:]
> That's exactly where the distinction lies. I'd go from plains
>to other plains (prairie, tundra, what-have-you), while your move
>is to a wider concept that includes plains along with other natural
>features. But you haven't generalized the concept of _plains_ --
>you've replaced it with a different category, which includes plains
>along with an assortment of other items.
* * *
And now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
moggin:
>>By contrast, you replace
>>the idea of "plains" with an entirely new category (called something
>>like "natural features," or "parts of the landscape") which refers to
>>plains along with a number of other things that aren't plains at all.
Matt:
>No, I don't think I did that. Though plains to plains/tundra does.
What do I know from the tundra? I think of it as being a generally
flat place -- that is, a kind of plain. Maybe I'm wrong on the facts; if
so, then I chose a bad example. But if the tundra is anything like the
picture I have (probably from some National Geographic special), the
concept of "plains" can easily be extended to include it. Contrariwise,
plains are flat, by definition, so you can't generalize from the idea of
"plains" to hills and valleys. What you _can_ do (and what you did)
is to place all three of them in some wider category. (Maybe "scenic
attractions.")
[...]
moggin:
>>The idea was to illustrate the two, different ways that we've
>>been using the term "generalize." I agree that you've replaced the
>>idea of "plains" with a wider (that is, a more general) class of items,
>>but you haven't generalized _from_ plains. You've just put them in
>>a broader category.
Matt:
>That is part of the discussion, one I don't want to get back into. I
>was trying to give some context to the issues as requested.
Wise man. I'll shut up, too.
-- moggin
Subject: Re: What is a constant? (was: Sophistry 103)
From: moggin@mindspring.com (moggin)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 14:30:28 GMT
Anton:
>So I did not intend to attack you. I simply did to you as you did to
>the science camp. And it irked you and you felt attacked.
moggin@mindspring.com (moggin):
> I didn't do anything to the science campers -- they attacked me. And
>what's ridiculous is that they attacked me for stating something they're
>convinced is a truism. Doesn't speak well for their intelligence, does
>it?
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati):
>Two month and countless posts and you still claim it. I won't even
>bother using descriptive epithets, , don't think they're needed. But,
>I'll just mention that claiming that "they are convinced that your
>statements are truisms" when "they" specifically said otherwise, is a
>fraud, just like it was when you attributed to me things I didn't say.
>Got to work a bit on these ethics standards, I would say.
moggin:
> As I recall, you didn't hesitate to rewrite my posts when you found
>yourself in some tight spots. So I'd stay away from any conversations
>about ethics, if I were you -- then again, maybe you're not troubled
>by hypocricy. I wouldn't know.
Mati:
>Your recall is faulty.
moggin:
> In this case it's dead-on.
moggin:
> Anyway, Russell, Michael, Jeff and others claimed that my point was
>obvious, called it a cliche, dismissed it as trivial, etc. -- curiously,
>that didn't stop them from disputing it or calling me all sorts of names.
> I don't offhand remember you calling it obvious, but you certainly
>agreed with it -- at least three separate times. Yet for some reason
>you keep changing your mind. I think you ought to figure out what you
>believe and get back to me after you have it sorted out. This is getting
>silly.
Mati:
>At least the last statement is true. As for the rest, Dejanews exists
>and anybody who still cares (probably an empty set by now) may check
>the facts.
moggin:
> And I encourage them to (assuming, as you say, that anybody still
>cares). Just to make it easy, here are two of the relevant exchanges:
* * *
system@niuhep.physics.niu.edu:
>>>: >Newton's laws are not a correct general model of the world. (Where
>>>: >"general" has a very specific meaning)
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu (Mati Meron):
>>>: >Yep.
* * *
moggin:
>>>>...as you said, in this scheme classical mechanics
>>>>is a primary theory, thus "constructed to be universally valid." And
>>>>given later findings, it isn't. So saying that it's invalid shouldn't
>>>>cause any fuss.
Mati:
>>> Not by me, at least. If you say "the belief that Newton's theory is
>>> universally valid was proven wrong" I'll sign it. Same if you say
>>> that it was proven to be "just an approximation".
* * *
Mati:
>And you still don't see the difference between the last one and your
>statement "Newton was wrong". My, my, I guess I overestimated your
>intelligence.
moggin:
: I made my point clear. You agreed with it several different times --
:nonetheless, you continued to dispute it with me -- for weeks on end!
:That leads me to the comment I offered above. Although there must also
:be other factors, and probably more interesting ones.
Mati:
>I asked you a clear question.
You asked no questions, clear or otherwise. Feeling confused again?
Mati:
>What is the difference between "Newton was wrong" and "the belief that
>Newton's theory is universally valid was proven wrong" Only if they convey
>the same meaning you may claim that I agreed with you. And, your inability to
>distinguish between the meanings proves rather conclusively that you have no
>understanding of what you're talking about. So, no smoke screens, just answer
>what is the difference.
Again, I made my point very clear -- from the beginning, I explained
that Newton was wrong for exactly the reasons you later agreed with --
as a matter of fact, I explained it over and over again, since the dullards
I was speaking to failed to understand. You agreed with me two or three
separate times -- I quoted a couple of them above. But each time you
returned to arguing. (Have I pointed out that you're a little confused?)
-- moggin
Subject: Re: what causes gravity? (remedial)
From: kfischer@iglou.com (Ken Fischer)
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 14:13:09 GMT
adona26963@aol.com wrote:
: correction...the warp of "spacetime" would be more accurate and I don't
: think it very circular to say that mass does this depending on its density
: and locality.
General Relativity is extremely accurate and specifies
the total energy of a body, so I assume that a star (having a
greater quantity of heat) would warp spacetime more than a
cold planet of the same size.
: The point is that gravitation is the effect of "interacting"
: forms of matter on itself within a local framework.
I don't know about the interacting? Only one object
is needed for gravity, it just can't be tested without a test
object.
: If it is necessary to
: gain a clear view of the picture by stepping back, as is often the case
: rather than stepping forward, then the whole region of spacetime as we can
: perceive or observe it (no small difference b/w the two) is filled with
: matter, so it must be "interacting" all at once;
I hope you are not suggesting another theory of a matter
aether throughout all of space, there is two many of those here
now.
: rather at several (or
: more) "once"s- hence space"time". It is of my opinion that taking a step
: back helps to see the picture better, as spacetime "gravitation" or
: "matter" fields unique at each space and time, yet I know of an equation
: or set that could allow us to translate one event between two frames.
The justaposition of matter determines the shape of
spacetime, so I think the equation would depend on the situation.
: Is
: that what the Lorentz transformation and the Minkowski spacetime uses for
: analysis of frameworks of "spacelike, timelike, and lightlike" events? So
: it is not meaningless to say (to me at least) that gravity is the
: manifestation (rather than force- it seems almost anything rather than a
: force) of the tendency (property) of matter, in a given "region" of
: spacetime, to create interaction fields unique to each of many possible
: observation locales with ways to translate, rotate about the axis, etc.
: what one frame of reference sees to another frame of reference.
I think manifestation is a better word than force, although
if discussing Newtonian gravitation, "force" is correct.
But I don't see where translations and rotations are all
that important in every situation, the useful math would more
likely be for predicting.
: It may
: help the reader to point out that I am now writing while considering the
: effects and importance of gravity in general terms from no formal training
: (yet) while thinking of larger systems (like the universe- always a great
: lab) rather than sub-atomic particles and their interactions. I say this
: because although I didn't mention them before, there probably are many
: clues to a future or modified gravitation theory in quarks, leptons,
: gluons and so forth.
Since the total energy of matter results from the constituent
particles and energy, all gravity theories must consider how many
of each particle and the associated energy involved.
: With a bit of concentration, one can easily see the
: misleading nature of calling atomic particles the cause of gravity because
: they are the components of matter.
Matter is the cause of gravity, so elementary particles
having mass cause a large part of the apparent curvature of
spacetime.
: If the electro- magnetic force (which I
: am not suspect of but do not fully integrate into a newer GR just yet
: without revising, even post-QED) is just like the gravitational "force"
: then (hopefully you've heard this before) WHY IS GRAVITY ATTRACTIVE while
: proton neutron and electrons repel and attract?
While gravity appears to be attractive, it isn't, unless
again, you are discussing Newtonian gravitation.
In General relativity, freefalling bodies are in inertial
motion, and are _not_ accelerating, and so are definitely not
attracted.
: I'm not saying that in
: order to be a force it has to repel also, but gravity is, in my opinion,
: either a special force, the true nature of which has been elusive but MUST
: be simple (theoretically it could be complex, although complex systems
: can/should be summarized simply to be effective-- E=mc2 =
: "light speed unity/constant, space & time relative to observer....time
: dilation, length contraction... folks, this is REAL" and still some people
: don't believe A.E., they don't get it...., "they" didn't like G.G. or
: N.C.either.)
I think when the way gravity works is established, it will
be extremely simple. It may be very different than previous
theories suggested, but it will be simple. I think 99.99 percent
of all formally educated scientists believe Einstein.
But isn't if exciting to think that even with all the work
and the complicated mathematics, there still isn't a clue as to
what causes gravity and how it works.
About all we know so far is, it isn't an attraction.
: how's this:
: 1. the stars form (in galaxies, mostly).
: 2. the planets go around the stars (we're on one).
: 3. the stars are born, live, shrink, and die (again, mostly in galaxies).
: 4. all the galaxies are moving away from each other (the Univ. is getting
: bigger).
: 5. this began a while ago and will continue (the Univ. is getting older).
: 6. GRAVITY, or Gravitation, is not a force but a geometrically
: extractable entity ,identical in effect to such force, of the matter which
: is percieved to have such "force"- all in the context of a
: four-dimensional spacetime (for purposes of convenient analysis- e.g.
: transformation, rotation, etc). It may be easier or more natural for
: others to just think of it as a force but I don't believe it is. Or at
: least its a special one (due to its relationship with matter, energy,
: space, and time) and deserves special attention, not a preexisting theory
: (Theory of force?) which can explain gravity, in its own terms and not
: those of so elusive a topic, as a force.
: WHAT GOES UP.....MUST.......
: uhhh......what goes UP?
: adona29693@aol.com
General Relativity is a mathematical description of
the gravitational process, to bad it isn't based on a
physical cause. But at least it has made it clear that
gravity is _NOT_ a force, and not an attraction.
We can go from there, with confidence that gravity
is not an attractive force, and try to find something that
can produce the same results as nature does.
I think we could do that in a couple of years with
the information at hand now, but it would take a lot of
cooperation, which seems not to be popular these days,
either everybody wants to go their own way with some pet
nonsensical theory, or they don't have time, or they think,
why bother, gravity is the most dependable thing in nature.
Ken Fischer
