Subject: Re: How to arrive at a new theory
From: erg@panix.com (Edward Green)
Date: 20 Dec 1996 01:57:36 -0500
Charles Cagle wrote:
What effectively could be the outline of a book on the philosophy of
science, and possibly another on its sociology, if all the questions
were answered in detail.
Personally, I am fairly secure in the state of my philosophy of
science, but I feel I have a right to be... I mean, I've sweated it
out over the last year of so, and while my ideas may evolve, I don't
see where I've got so far being fundamentally wrong... it's just too
general. But of course I have something to say about some of your
points...
>8) Since most of the questions have had some sort of 'do you believe'
>aspect to them, do you consider it possible that what you are or are not
>willing to believe (even temporarily) structures both the kinds of
>questions that you can ask and the kind of answers that you can perceive?
I think that is a rhetorical question. Well put.
>9) Can you consider the premise that the universe is entirely nonlocal in
>the interactions of what appear to be its separate components? Or do you
>reject the possibility of nonlocal physics altogether.
Yes and no. I certainly don't rule out that the universe is
"non-local" in the sense I think you mean. But on another level I am
more attached to "locality". I simply mean the expectation that the
universe will embody *some* kind of locality; there will be some
notion of connectedness, of neighborhoods. If the apparent locality
of spacetime is shown to kind of an illusion, then I expect a deeper
kind of locality to emerge.
Oh, damn, I guess I have to blather about my philosophy after all...
I'll make it quick. In light of your (8), I say an effective
strategy is to have a sort of onion of beliefs. No level of the onion
is absolutely sacrosanct, all are subject to revision, but not all
are subject to revision all the time! When you meet something about
the world you do not understand, you begin peeling back the layers of
the onion, until you find the outermost layer whose change will
suffice. For beliefs, you may read "hypotheses". All is hypothesis,
but some are more secure than others.
At the core of my onion are a couple of hypotheses that I find it
very unlikely I would ever change. These are something like "There is
a continuity to reality" and "I am sane". Without these assumptions I
really don't see how you can begin doing physics at all. It's like
assuming that the game has rules. Everything else is up for grabs.
That does not mean I will rush to embrace the weirdest concept
possible. That defies the onion strategy. Of course, "weird" is
subjective. That is a common kind of psychology around here though.
The next step is to imply those who demur from making the immediate
jump to maximum weirdness are mental midgets who cannot follow in
your... Ok, I guess I am grinding an axe now.
So I am saying "some notion of locality" is deeper in my onion than
"spacetime locality", though I personally have not even touched that
layer yet. Not that I am clinging to it is desperation... I could not
really give a flying... er, excuse me, what I mean is, nobody has
convinced me that spacetime locality, such a useful concept, should
not have the position of privileged or incumbent hypothesis...
Ok... thinking about this clarifies the problem. The the
weird-positive camp wants to make the formality of QM the privileged
hypothesis. They have some good reason... it has not failed us yet.
But neither has spacetime locality!! I still make spacetime locality
a deeper layer of my onion. They need a better argument than "all
results so far have been in accord with the formalism of QM" to peel
it away. I need to be convinced a repeatable experiment has been
performed that has no possible explanation in spacetime local
theories.
That was long after all.
>10) Do you believe physics is entirely deterministic or even
>superdeterministic? If you believe that it is then is there a place for
>'free will' in your epistemology, philosophy or religion? If so, where
>would that be?
It can be debated whether indeterminism is a requirement for "free
will". If your choice if effectively the result of a dice roll in
your head, does this make it "your" decision? I understand the
feeling... if we are physical entities, and physics is deterministic,
then is our sensation of making "decisions" just the feeling of being
along for the ride? I don't know. I don't think chance is the
answer. Determinism vs. indeterminism isn't even in my onion. The
world looks indeterminate. I know of no operational distinction
between the two... I am not sure the question is even sensible.
Oh, one more thing about onions. I understand other people may layer
their onions differently. I have no difficulty with that.
Reasonable people can disagree. What I have a problem with
is people who insist their onion is made of diamond.
Subject: Re: Creation VS Evolution
From: crs
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 02:29:56 +0100
In response to some pathetic stuff about faces appearing on walls Tracy
Bell wrote:
>
> Lets clear something up. There are going to be NO sighting of anything
> until the day Jesus comes back to earth and he will be in physical form and
> it will be a really big deal (IE: obvious). Anything that people claim to
> see beforehand is either deception from Satan or a mistake. Hope this
> clears up those false sightings.
Thus spake Tracy! It's clear Bell is a believer but what is not clear
is where the other stuff comes from. Deception from Satan??? Really,
Tracy aren't we a little off the deep end here. Nothing was cleared up
by your rant.
Anyway, the thread is about evolution vs. creationism so I thought I'd
comment on that. As long as creationites want to believe in a 6000-7000
year old earth (Let's trot out old Bishop Usher again - it'll be fun!)
they should believe that. But such a doctrine cannot be called science
- in the classroom or anywhere else - without a vociforous challenge.
It is not science. It may be myth posing as truth - it may even be
represented as fundamental to someone's religious beliefs (why, I'll
never understand). But it is not science.
I do find it curious that the scriptural writings of many faiths are
claimed to contain their own internal validation. Challenge thus
becomes impossible (as far as some "true believers" are concerned)
because there is no truth but the literal truth. In previous posts, the
above correspondent has even claimed that the Bible was dictated (word
for word, I presume). We're way beyond the doctrine of inspiration with
that one! But this is how far one has to go to subscribe to a
literalist interpretation - no connotative meaning - just denotative
meaning. No mystery - it's all obvious.
The question is - Is this faith? If the truth of scriptural writings is
seen as obvious (internal validation, insisting on literalist
interpretation) then what is there to affirm? Tracy wants to clear
things up - to represent them as being entirely available to anyone who
wishes to open the pages of a single book. In exchange for our
sacrifice of the intellect ("Credo quia absurdam est.") we are to be
given absolute certainty. Isn't that just a little sad?
There is something else that is troubling about "true believers" who
claim to know the truth with absolute certainty. They tend to engage in
the most unspeakable cruelty in their dealing with unbelievers.
Christians, Atheists (just another religion), Hindus, Muslims, Jews etc.
have at one time or another engaged in punative actions - even killing
sprees - to enforce their version of the truth. No scientist ever tried
to jail a creationite but creationites have thrown scientists (and
science teachers) in jail. This is what people do when they believe
themselves to be absolutely certain.
The trouble is - we're curious creatures. It is a part of our nature to
ask questions and to look for deeper meanings. It is also a part of our
nature to gather data, interpret it and place it in some context. That
is what science is all about. When it's done right, it's about humility
and being very sure before we say we know something. It's about
doubting and asking questions and striving to find answers. The
difference between relying on scripture and doing science is that in the
former case, you really don't have to work to find the "truth" while in
the latter case, you do.
Tracy, you ought to lighten up. Things aren't quite as clear and as
easy as you claim they are. Will you always go running off to find some
tiny passage in the Bible to protect yourself from doubt? Will you
always look to "clear [things] up" with a single absolute statement -
probably based on some literal biblical passage (dictated, perhaps)?
What are you afraid of?
Chuck Szmanda
chucksz@ultranet.com
Ubi dubium ibi libertas.
Subject: Welcome back Ed! Was Re: Constrained to What Surface?,
From: ale2@psu.edu (ale2)
Date: 20 Dec 1996 07:48:11 GMT
In article <599s8o$e85@agate.berkeley.edu>
erg@panix.com (Edward Green) writes:
> (Slightly modified article posted in parallel in sci.physics
> and sci.physics.relativity -- followups set to s.p.r.)
>
> [Moderator's note: Please note that the r in s.p.r. above stands for
> "relativity," not "research." Followup discussion should occur
> there, not here. -TB]
>
> I want to ask you to what extent experiment requires the strict
> principle of relativity and the isotropy of space in all frames, as
> opposed to what extent experiment confirms a theory built on these
> assumptions. Mathematicians will see the parallel to requirement vs.
> sufficiency, or to a function and the possible existence of its
> inverse.
>
> I am (attempting) to post to sci.physics.research in parallel, though
> this technically constitutes spamming,
If only i had the nerve to admit most of my stuff was spam! Welcome
back Ed. And is that Oz out there also? Just in time for the holidays!
Hope you guys stick around!
> I am saddened by the demise of the unmoderated groups.
It is just a phase that the group is going through, mixed up
adolescence.
Now Ed, what do YOU do for thought constipation, you know, Brain
constipation ( i assume you are human and have human type problems, or
is it just my physics diet?). Do you know of any thought laxative (
Brain-Lax maybe?) for when you don't have a regular movement of ideas.
Though i'm afraid i have had the opposite ailment more often, you know
%^(
A trip to the library seemed to cure my problem for now,
"Spinor Theory and Relativity, part I" by W.T. Payne
American Journal of Physics, pages 526-536, 1955 or 1956 i think. You
will love this paper!
Subject: Re: College Prof, Or SUPER VILLAIN!
From: ale2@psu.edu (ale2)
Date: 20 Dec 1996 08:02:29 GMT
In article <32c5dcdc.5121284@news.onramp.net>
jaffo@onramp.net (Jaffo) writes:
>
> Last year, I actually had one guy, a Physics TA I was sucking up to, tell
> me there's a sekrut corporate CONSPIRACY that keeps SUPER-EFFICIENT cars
> off the market. It's all about the EVIL OIL COMPANIES you see. They make
> us drive expensive, gas guzzling cars so they can keep their EVIL CORPORATE
> PROFITS!!
Saw a public TV show about an alleged conspiracy of auto makers back in
the 30's or 40's to destroy the compatition, trains and trolleys, the
ultimate effect was to criple public transportation (they won, we
lost?). The plot was very simple and plausible. Don't think it happens
all the time, just a possible pitfall of Capitalism.
Subject: Re: faster than light travel
From: Sylvia Else
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 19:32:10 -0800
Josh wrote:
> time dialation or inertia! It almost seems too good to be true! Now
> there is still one more problem, getting your "baby universe" and thus
> you to the c. barrier and beyond.
I think you'll find that your baby universe still has a component in the
real universe, and that its mass will necessarily be at least as much as
your mass was to begin with.
> We know that the galaxies on the other side of the obserable universe
> are moving away from us at velocities that greatly exceed the speed of
> light,
Do we? How? How do we even know that they exist, since clearly no
radation from the could reach us, by virtue of being red-shifted into
non-existence.
> I don't know if what I've said makes much sense to you, all I know is
> that I know how it works in my head. If you want to flame me for any
> discrepancies feel free to do so, I just leave this disclaimer. I am not
> a physicist (like no duh!) and I have only studied physics for the past
> four years.
You are really positing the existence of mechanisms for which you have no
evidence, and which, were they to exist, would mean that the laws of the
Universe as presently understood were wrong. Well - indeed they might be
- but there is nothing to be gained by assuming that they're wrong in
some particular aspect, and then using that to construct some sort of
superluminal fantastic theoretical edifice.
Sylvia.
Subject: Re: Einstein's Constant
From: ale2@psu.edu (ale2)
Date: 20 Dec 1996 09:31:29 GMT
In article <59amtm$cau@asgard.actrix.gen.nz>
cliff_p@actrix.gen.nz (Cliff Pratt) writes:
> Einstein's theory >describes< reality. Scientists >measure<. The fact that
> they cannot measure the value of c is irrelevant. The theory >assumes< that
> the speed of light is constant. The theory does not assign any value to that
> constant. The constant does not change, but our measurements of it do.
>
I think you are wrong here? Measure the force between known masses
which don't move. This gives you one constant in terms of the masses
and the distance between them. Now measure the rate at which spinning
masses of known angular momentum and known separation change their
angular momentum w.r.t. time. The equation which gives this effect has
two constants in it, the Gravitational constant G divided by the speed
of light squared?? The speed of light can be an experimentally
determined constant by doing two experiments with masses!
See: Am. J. Phys.,Vol.59, No. 5, May 1991, pages 421-425 for equation
in question.
Subject: Re: "What causes inertia?
From: Malkki Heikki
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 11:11:13 -0800
Louis Savain wrote:
>
> In article <595qri$j05$1@learnet.freenet.hut.fi>,
> haporopu@mail.freenet.hut.fi (Hannu Poropudas,Oulu Suomi) wrote:
>
> >
> >I would like to ask Louis Savain one question.
> >I refer here to his "Re: What causes inertia", which was dated
> >Sat Dec 14 03:52:34 1996.
> >
> >
> >How does the definition of electron' s mass as follows:
> >
> >Electron's mass is only due expansion resistance of the Universe
> >
> >fit to your descriptions in your article.?
>
> Sorry. I've heard this definition of an electron's mass before but
> I'm sorry to say that it makes no sense to me. Enlighten me.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Louis Savain
Geometry of the Universe could be coordinated with aid of almost
instantaneous color electricity signals and mass changes that
color electricity to black color electricity (= no color electricity).
See README.see, README.mid, README.all and drawings of H-M in
http://www.funet.fi/pub/doc/misc/HannuPoropudas
Best Regards,
Hannu Poropudas.
Subject: TWA FLIGHT 800 AND THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT
From: nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)
Date: 20 Dec 1996 03:48:30 -0500
--------------------------------------------------------
TWA FLIGHT 800 AND THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT
--------------------------------------------------------
The real reason TWA Flight 800 was destroyed
Pierre Salinger, respected journalist and former press secretary for the
Kennedy Administration, was convinced to go public with a document posted
on the Internet by a person "inside the Government" who has high level
connections to the TWA Flight 800 investigation. The Document in question
described the release of a missile from a Navy ship with an Ageis Missile
system in a Navy exercise area off the coast of New York's Long Island in
an area known as Warning area -105
I have information regarding the real information hidden within the
document. I cannot reveal my idenitity for fear of endangering my life.
Several witnesses on the night of the explosion, including the pilot of a
New York Air National Guard plane, reported the sighting of "an orange
streak of light" descending toward Flight 800. Some have speculated this
to be a missile, others a meteor and some conspiracy people have suggested
a UFO. None of the above of the true. The truth of this matter will be
so startling that you will not believe it at first reading but you will
eventually have to accept it as fact.
The "streak of light" was an electro-magnetic-temporal ribbon that sliced
through the atmosphere on the night of July 17th, 1996. This ribbon was
created as a result of the conjunction of several top-secret government
scientific experiments involving Einstein's Unified Field Theory (UFT) and
the effects of high electro-magnetic frequency waves on portions of the
atmosphere to warp into existence a rift in the space-time continuum .
At 8:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, two large antenna arrays, the first one
in the state of Alaska known as the High-frequency Active Auroral Research
Project (H.A.A.R.P) and the second in Norway known as European Incoherent
Scatter Radar site (EISCAT), were activated to study the creation of
temporal anomalies in the Earths atmosphere by altering the magnetosphere
of the Earth in a way to cause such intense fields of magnetic compression
within an area to warp a rift into the space-time continuum. The purpose
of the project was to create this rift to study Einsteins Unified Field
Theory. Several sites across the Earth were selected for the creation of
the rift in areas away from civilian centers and airline traffic.
The target area was to be over the center of the Atlantic Ocean and was to
be studied by top-secret Military Atmospheric Information Satellites
(MAIS). Several other attempts at this experiment failed due to
miscalculations within the internal sub-processors of at least three Cray
3 super computers stored at the H.A.A.R.P. site. Once the sub-processors
within the Cray-3's were replaced and several maintainence and calibration
checks were performed, the system was at full operation on the night of
July 17th, 1996. The facilities of H.A.A.R.P in Alaska and EISCAT in
Norway were simuletanously put into operation.
Once the experiment was started the rift was created, it was only visible
to the MAIS satellies and the American and Europeans Governments
scientific personell stationed at H.A.A.R.P. and EISCAT. This experiment
was a sucess until TWA Flight 800 intersected with an invisible "temporal
axis" left permanently in place by two previous experiments by the U.S.
Government to study Einsteins Unified Field Theory. If a line were drawn
across the Earth to connect these two sites of previous experiments, one
end of the line would end in Philadelphia Harbor in Philadelphia
Pennsylvania and the other in Montauk, Long Island.
Philadelphia Harbor was the location of an Unified Field Theory experiment
on August 15th, 1943, known as the "Philadelphia Experiment". A Navy
Destroyer Escort known as the U.S.S. Eldrige (DE 173) was outfitted with
large electromagnetic Tesla coils for an experiment involving "radar
invisibility". The first test of the ship was a success but a second
test on that fateful day would prove fatal to many crew members who would
man the ship. According to classified ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence)
files, the U.S.S. Eldrige underwent a dramatic change once the experiment
was under way. The ship, was surrounded by a green haze of
electromagnetic energy and the Eldrige vanished in splaying light into the
space-time continuum.
Echoes of the Eldrige were scattered all over the space time continuum
both in the past and the future in the proximity of both high
electromagnetic fields and temporal distortion fields. One echo appeared
in the previous port of the Eldrige, Norfolk, Virginia. The ship
re-appeared in Philadelphia with several crew members burned, some phased
and combined with the super-structure of the ship and others who vanished
or were able to walk through walls and one man apparently traveled through
time to the year 1984 as you will see later.
Several more echoes of the Eldrige have appeared since 1943 and would be
significant in the events that followed later.
A second experiment to study Einsteins Unified Field Theory took place in
Montauk, Long Island in the summer of 1984. This experiment was mean to
be an improvement on the original Philadelphia Experiment. This project
would also have dire consequences that would endanger the Earth itself.
The experiment was activated and in hyper-dimensonal space, which as no
time what-so-ever, the effect of the Montauk Project intersected with the
effects of the Philadelphia Experiment. A vortex was opened up between
the years 1943 and 1984.
An echo of the U.S.S. Eldrige appeared and vanished. One of the sailors
from the Eldrige was stranded in the year 1984 at Montauk. According to
scientists working on the Montauk Project, the vortex between Montauk and
Philadelphia was staying open because it was still being controlled by the
generators powering the electro-magnetic coils on the Eldrige in 1943.
If the vortex had stayed open, the 1984 Earth would have been pulled into
hyperdimensonal space and destroyed as it passed through the vortex and
collided with the 1943 Earth. The sailor from the Eldrige was convinced
to go back through the vortex to the U.S.S. Eldrige in 1943 and shut down
the generators. He went back and destroyed several vacuum tube arrays
for the circuity running the 1943 experiment. He then vanished, never to
be seen again.
Although the vortex was closed between Philadelphia 1943 and Montauk 1984,
a permenant "temporal axis" was left between the two sites, stretching
from Philadelphia, across New Jersey and across the Atlantic Ocean, just
ten miles south of Long Island until it reached Montauk. Now we get to
July 17th, 1996.
As TWA Flight 800 was rising to 13,000 feet, it was also intersecting with
this "temporal axis". At the moment TWA Flight 800 intersected, the
trasponder was continously sending a signal to JFK International Tower,
giving it's location on the Air Traffic Control Screens. This signal was
at the exact same harmonic frequency as the temporal distortion caused by
H.A.A.R.P. and EISCAT over the Atlantic. The temporal distortion became
naturally attracted to the harmonic signal eminating from the TWA's
transponder and "quantum leaped" from it's original site to cross the
"temporal axis" at a 90 degree angle, at the exact point in which TWA
Flight 800 intersected with it.
An orange streak of light became visible as the temporal distortion
appeared from it's quantum leap and then shortened it's length down to the
plane from both directions. The rift tore through the plane, destroying
the transponder and causing a massive explosion of molten metal that
punctured the center fuel tank. This is why some witnesses say the streak
of light came from above (the meteor theory) or it rose from below (the
missile theory) and why there has been no evidence of a bomb, missile or
mechanical failure. The first "booming" sound heard by witnesses was the
temporal rift destroying the center fuel tank and the second sound was the
wing tanks beginning to explode.
The destruction of the center fuel tank caused the chain reaction
explosion through out the fuel tanks in the wings while the plane
plummeted to the Atlantic, killing all 230 people on board. At the exact
same moment of the destruction of Flight 800, an echo of the U.S.S.
Eldrige appeared on the Atlantic, 13,000 feet directly underneath the
plane. The Eldrige appearance explains why there were reports of a ship
in the area near Flight 800 and then discounted by the Government as
conjecture by the media.
There have been periodic after effects of this juncture with the most
recent reappearance of the rift appearing near a Pakistani airliner on
November 16th, 1996 while it followed the same path as Flight 800. The
transponder of the Pakistani Airliner temporarily reactivated the temporal
rift.
The rift was activated again by a Canadian Airlines 747 on December 13th, 1996.
The current news stories are telling us that there was a spark near an air
conditioning unit (what the hell does air conditioning have to do with the
center fuel tank anyways?) that set off the explosion, what's not being
told is the "spark" the authories are not telling us about is the rupture
in the space time continuum.
This is the true story that needs to be told and the doors must be opened
on the secrecy surrounding top secret Unified Field Theory projects before
more deaths are caused.
Let the truth be known.
