It leads me to be now suspicious of James' claims, but the theory still is
true as being Boscovich - LL Whyte and Baranski; it’s just James that is
now in doubt. He appears to not want anyone recheck his work, and by the
scientific method replication of experimental claims is very important to
confirm those claims are correct and not made by faulty experiments. i.e.
he has chosen to be unscientific.
Even if James cannot get the images he claims (see link previously
provided) at the subatomic level approaching the Planck scale of size, the
theory still has that as possible.
This is contrary to some in the mainstream’s point-of-view where the
belief is that imaging at this scale would be prevented by (1) Heisenberg
Uncertainty and (2) the idea – that it is not possible to view objects
smaller than wavelength of the wave being used to view them.
However - Heisenberg Uncertainty can be compensated for (New Scientist has
dealt with this to a brief extent - “Quantum randomness may not be
random”, 22 March 2008) and according to Baranski - waves are made of
smaller waves; hence such imaging is possible by UFT.
So, that on the subatomic level which is thought of as obeying quantum
rules, there is a level where classical rules come back to play once
again- classical physics as per Einstein.
Einstein was opposed to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
(highlighted in the famous clash of titans - Einstein versus Bohr debate
and Einstein saying God does not play dice with the universe).
It is fairly obvious that Classical Newtonian -type physics still applies
to the universe, despite the complicated way of Quantum mechanics has in
talking about things. This is because in our daily lives we observe the
universe obeying classical physics.
The claim by Quantum mechanics is that on the subatomic level, the physics
is no longer obeying those simple classical physics rules of our daily
lives. However given that Quantum mechanics applies on subatomic level,
[*] as we go back to our level of size scale what Quantum mechanics says
on the small scale, the physics must change to match what we observe on
our scale.
[*] proviso here is that Quantum mechanics as viewed by the philosophy of
Copenhagen Interpretation could be disputed, and instead viewed by a
different philosophy.
In the case of a subatomic particle, Quantum mechanics likes to consider
the scenario of one photon of light hitting the particle to be observed,
and then says there is uncertainty. (The photon hitting the particle to be
observed, nudges it making it move, so there is then uncertainty with the
position of the observed particle etc.) However, on our scale of size we
do not consider the effects of one photon on what we are observing,
instead we have lots of photons hitting that observed object, hence what
is uncertainty on subatomic level by one photon-observation gets swamped
out on our scale by us using lots of photons for observation.
Anyway, despite my disappointment with James, the UFT still holds. And
this does not affect the other information such as - Proof of ETI that
comes from Peter Cheasley, and the physical process of how life starts
that comes from Dr Baranski showing that life is common throughout the
universe. Baranski’s evidence has been scientifically peer reviewed and
Cheasley’s results have been repeated by others to a lesser extent. Of
course one would ideally like Cheasley and Baranski’s evidence checked
many more times.
Baranski’s complicated science paper gives proof for ET (i.e. life outside
earth), and Cheasley gives proof for ETI (i.e. intelligence outside the
earth). ETI Music signals have been detected by Radio Astronomy, but in
the context of unified theory that the mainstream has difficulty
understanding.
Pythagoras talked about Music of the Spheres, and the proof of ETI is all
tied into that tradition of physics investigation. Pythagoras was said to
have been trained in ancient wisdom from Egypt and Babylon; so it’s a long
tradition. It was picked up again in the Copernican Revolution.
I am now going issues some of which have already been dealt with in
articles (1) to (5) below, but with latest information:
The History of Physics has been affected by religious, political and
philosophic disputes and this Pythagorean tradition of theoretical physics
have suffered from this.
The Film “The Da Vinci Code” deals with the idea that Jesus had
descendants and that has been suppressed by Christian religion for
thousands of years. Put that issue to one side. The film does deal with
the science tradition that has been suppressed. There is a scene where a
murdered man is found with a pentagram inscribed on his chest. The
detective investigating the case says that it is a sign of the Devil. The
hero of the film says it is a pagan symbol representing the unity of
female and male. The Christian movement demonised a great deal of the
pagan world; it was a revision – symbols like the pentagram were not
originally satanic until the Christian movement said it was. (There is a
side-issue that the pentagram one way is okay, but inverted is Satanic.
Before Christianity invented the Devil, the pagan world without Devil
would not have interpreted the symbol that way.)
And the pentagram was one of the symbols of the Pythagorean movement.
Pythagorean movement was of course one of the pagan movements, and the
Christian Church demonised it along with other pagan beliefs.
Galileo and Copernicus’ science was based upon a Pythagorean approach, and
the Church did not like the Pythagorean version of religion that the
Pythagorean science could be attached to; so those following it risked
charges of heresy which was punishable by death.
The Catholic Church placed a Ban on the Copernican Revolution’s science
following the Inquisition trial of Galileo. However, there was a protest
movement against Catholic beliefs called the Protest-ants; this was still
a Christian belief system, but the Protestants wanted a different version
of Christianity to the Catholics. To the Catholics this Protestant
Christianity was heresy; hence both religious groups were in Conflict.
It resulted in – that Protestant England there was more freedom to pursue
beliefs that were heresy to the Catholic Church. Hence Newton was able to
pursue Galileo’s ideas. Newton was an alchemist, which meant that he had
beliefs in Ancient Egyptian wisdom called Hermeticism, and so he risked
going to far and being a heretic from even a Protestant Christian
country’s point-of-view. (And Ancient Egyptian wisdom Hermeticism is
related to Pythagoreanism, because Pythagoras studied it.)
The Catholic Church despite its Ban on Galileo’s science had to because of
Newton and others still raising the heretical science ideas then look
again at the relevant science.
Leibniz on the Continent of Europe was pursuing the same science as Newton
in England; but there arose a split between them. An argument between
Newton and Leibniz as to who had priority to what discoveries. This split
continued over many centuries. While the Catholic Church under the
influence of such priests as Father Boscovich took away its Ban on this
Newtonian science.
However, the version of Newtonianism that Continental Europe followed
(under influence of Catholic Church) was mainly the Leibniz version taken
up by Boscovich. While England with its national hero Newton wanted to
stay faithful to Newton and reject the Continental version of Newtonianism
based on Leibniz.
The main issue where this split occurred between the two versions of
Newtonianism was over how gravity operated. Newton did not want to give an
explanation, and left it as action-at-a-distance without saying how it
worked. While on the continent this developed into the idea of a “field”
through Boscovich – who called it a “sphere of influence”.
Scotland and England were not really on friendly terms either, so while
England wanted to stick with their National hero Newton, Scotland was more
prepared to go with the Continent ideas. Hence Maxwell the Scot took up
the idea of “field” and applied it to electromagnetism.
The field idea applied to gravity is the gravitational field, while in
electromagnetism it is the electromagnetic field. I will pick up anon how
these fields are unified.
In the 20th Century there became an amazing confusion over fundamental
concepts.
The correct science tradition should be based upon the Pythagorean
tradition.
As noted - the Church didn’t like Pythagoreanism’s possible religious
interpretations so when Galileo presented evidence for Pythagorean
science, the Church wanted to deny that evidence. Eventually the Church
conceded.
However, arising out of that denial was a philosophic tradition that
wanted to deny evidence that contradicted its philosophic point-of-view.
This philosophic point-of-view went by many names, but those following it
wanted to cloak it with the appearance of being scientific.
When Galileo presented his astronomical evidence there were many who
denied that evidence, and such people should more properly be called
something like “Exclusionists” - because they excluded evidence that they
did not like. Unfortunately these people are in the scientific community,
the same as Galileo found in his day.
When it comes to experiments which are supposed to prove things, this body
of Exclusionists have many techniques to ignore and exclude such evidence.
Methods such as - believing for no good reason that the experiment was not
done properly.
Politicians have latched onto this philosophy of Exclusionism, and adopted
it as one of their favourite techniques of trying to ignore and/or exclude
evidence that contradicts them.
These politicians also like science to back their politics, so they
support science with this exclusionist philosophic point-of-view. -
Politicians want science to say what agrees with their politics; i.e.
science has become a political football.
Hence when it comes to approaches to science, the political backing is
more for the exclusionists than the correct way of Pythagoreanism. Thus
the Pythagorean- type approach from its beginnings with the Copernican
Revolution has become mostly lapsed.
The way this has become lapsed has been quite easy done; because the
Pythagorean approach requires science to be done in a certain way and
maths to be done in a certain way, and maths education is so bad it’s no
longer done in a proper way consistent with the Pythagorean approach.
Meaning that maths is badly taught to would-be scientists and this gets
carried over into their science being bad also.
I work-shadowed a maths teacher to see how the maths education is so bad.
The attempt by the maths education system is to make maths being taught as
simple as possible to the students; this is resulting in “dumbing down”;
and that results in corrupting the maths being taught; resulting in
students getting an incorrect understanding of maths.
One example I came across was a class of pupils being taught that the
square root of 49 was +7. They were not told about the negative root.
I brought this issue up with the maths teacher, he said it was about
making maths as simple as possible for the pupils to understand, and at
this age they did not bring in the complication of negative roots; but two
years later they introduced negative roots. So, at this age they were
taught the square root of 49 was +7 only and 2 years later they were
taught the square root of 49 was +7 and -7.
I pointed out that at two years older they could interpret that they had
been lied to when they were originally told it was +7 with no mention of
-7. He admitted that it might be interpreted that way.
That is precisely my point --- from my perspective I view them as being
lied to.
If I were told the square root of 49 was only +7 and then later told “well
actually the square root is +7 and -7 not just +7” then I view it that I
was lied to!
This is a Fundamental Point!
Some people might not care about this. It is the nature of what has become
our political climate that this attitude of not caring is now held by many
people. But maths if it is to be properly taught cannot be taught so that
it’s one thing one moment and something else the next; because it just
leads to confusion.
If you tell me something one moment and then later tell me something else;
then you lied to me!
The way that maths is being taught is to lie to the student to make things
simpler.
If it were just the square root issue then if would be trivial. But it is
not just this square root lie; it’s the lie being repeated again and again
with any mathematical concept.
The lie does not confine itself to maths; you are taught one thing one
moment and then later taught something else as a supposed update.
Suppose for instance that these students only understood the lesson where
they were told that the square root of 49 was +7 and missed the lesson
where it was updated. Then they might go throughout life with believing
the lie that the square root of 49 was +7, and never knowing the truth
that it was +7 and -7.
Throughout the maths education system lies like this are being taught, and
if you miss the lesson to update to the truth on a certain issue, or you
do not understand the lesson that updates to the truth, then you can go
through life believing mathematical lies.
And from my study of scientists, this is indeed what happens – there are
numerous mathematical lies being taught, and different people still
believe those lies throughout their life, never updating to the truth.
i.e. the scientists have not been given a Pythagorean understanding of
maths, and instead have various different collections of mathematical lies
that they believe in.
This corruption of education goes very deep according to Charlotte Thomson
Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the US Department of Education,
blew the whistle on government activities, in her book “The Deliberate
Dumbing down of America” there is a large group active in education whose
agenda is to deliberately dumb down people so that they will accept the
New World Order.
(http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/)
There is another aspect to this Education issue. Pythagoreanism – although
I am interested in the science part; it is also attached to a religious
point-of-view, and the religious point-of-view the Christians might
disapprove. So, try teaching correct Pythagorean maths and there might be
a backlash from Christian Fundamentalist parents opposed to it being
taught to their children. At the moment the Fundamentalists are opposed to
Darwin’s Evolution being taught, but there is little to stop them
objecting to lots of things. Corruption of Education is what a lot of
pressure groups want, and probably been one of the influences on why maths
has been corrupted in the way it has been.
One goes through a Bad Education system, and one has to fight against what
one has been told. (The politico-religious pressures that have be brought
to bear on teaching you bad.)
In science itself without the maths corruption, there are other scientific
concept corruptions.
For instance: the word atom originally meant a part of particle of matter
that could not be split up to anything smaller. Come the 20th century a
particle of matter was called an atom and then it was split into something
smaller by the Atom Bomb; hence the word atom in the 20th Century was no
longer referring to a particle of matter that could not be split into
anything smaller.
You might wonder what the point of this is. Well the point is this – come
the 20th Century the atom was referring to a particle that could be split,
but if you were reading a theory written in an earlier century when the
word atom was used it was referring to a particle that could not be split.
Boscovich’s 18th Century theory of atoms is dealing with particles that
cannot be split; however a 20th Century Atom theory is referring to
particles that can be split.
From the perspective of someone taught 20th Century physics’ atoms, if
they then look at Boscovich’s theory they can erroneously think well that
theory must be wrong, because Boscovich’s atoms cannot be split, but I
know that atoms can be split.
However, the truth is Boscovich when talking of atoms is not talking about
20th Century atoms, and that theory he is dealing with of an unsplittable
particle is still valid.
Now, knowing this let us consider Bearden’s theory:
Bearden’s theory is based upon modern physics misunderstanding Maxwell’s
theory of electromagnetism. His claim is that Maxwell’s theory was
originally based upon a quaternion—a sort of 4 dimensional vector, but it
was subsequently simplified to make it easier to understand by having
electromagnetic field theory deal instead with 3 dimensional vector and a
scalar.
That ties in with what I have been saying about the corruption of maths
education.
A three dimensional vector is merely 3 numbers collected together as (A,
B,C) where A, B and C are three numbers - this three dimensional vector in
electromagnetic field theory is called part of the vector field of
electromagnetism. Along with that field there is another field called
scalar field, which is merely a single number let us call it D.
So the simplified Electromagnetic Field theory consists of a three
dimensional vector field (A,B,C) and a scalar field D.
Now the quaternion is merely a 4 dimensional vector, so the numbers A, B,
C and D we could merely write in the form (A,B,C,D) and that is then a 4
dimensional vector called the quaternion; we could call it a Quaternion
Field then we have the Electromagnetic Quaternion Field theory.
That is all the difference there is between the simplified Electromagnetic
Field theory of vector field (A,B,C) and scalar field D and
Electromagnetic Quaternion Field theory; just put the numbers in the form
(A,B,C,D).
Of course associated with this simple process of re-arranging the numbers
A,B,C, D can be a minefield of mathematical mistakes. And our bad maths
education could make many mistakes with these numbers A,B,C,D when they
start applying them to physics.
Anyway, that is the basis of Bearden’s theory.
He has I have read been heavily criticised by what appears to be a
Professor having deep knowledge about mainstream Electromagnetic theory.
Now, the situation of this theoretical argument boils down to this:
In the standard physics education system, a student of physics gets taught
about three dimensional vector fields and scalar fields in Electromagnetic
Field theory, but that might be as far as his education goes, he might not
be taught the next step; which is namely Relativity.
In mainstream Relativity, time is treated as a dimension, and so added to
the three dimensions of space we can form in Relativity theory a 4
dimensional vector which is called a Relativistic vector. This is not
necessarily the same as the four dimensional vector called the quaternion.
But the point is Bearden’s theory deals with 4 dimensional vectors in
electromagnetism.
A student of physics if they studied electromagnetism eventually gets to
dealing with 4 dimensional vectors also. And this is where the professor
argues against Bearden. The professor is already dealing with 4
dimensional vectors in electromagnetic theory, and all Bearden seems to be
doing is essentially doing the same thing of dealing with 4 dimensional
vectors in electromagnetic theory (though calling them quaternions). From
the professor’s point-of-view Bearden is not offering anything new because
he is already dealing with the same thing as him.
However, from a scientist who has not progressed from the simplified
theory dealing only with three dimensional vector to the next step up of
four dimensional vector, what is being offered is new to him. It might not
be new to this professor who criticises Bearden, but to a scientist who
has not gone far enough along the education process what Bearden says is
new.
So, now let me summarise—the Electromagnetic Field Theory unifies the
electric force and the magnetic force by a four dimensional vector.
The next question is how do we unify the gravitational force; and the
answer is simple – we merely increase the number of dimensions of the
vector. In Electromagnetic Field theory we have a four dimensional vector
field. All we have to do to include gravity is introduce an extra
dimension to get a five dimensional vector field. And if we want to go
further, we can increase the number of dimensions even further.
It’s not too hard to find this theory - Kaluza and Klein have looked at
the idea of unifying gravity with electromagnetism by five dimensions in
the early 20th Century. But if we look back to the 18th Century, we can
see that this was already done by Boscovich.
By looking back in the literature of science we can find a more advanced
theory than the theories we so far have today. And the reason for this is
the attempt to simplify.
The attempt to simplify has been the corrupting process of our education
system. With each level of exam we are presented with an update upon what
we have been taught before; such as the example we are taught for one exam
we must answer +7 only as the square root of 49, while a few years later
we have to answer in the next exam the update of +7 and -7. If we do not
go far enough along the education process we do not get the subsequent
updates and reside in theories with mathematical errors. But look to the
past and there was no simplifying corrupting process and the complete
theory is presented in one go, not in little chunks that need updates.
Based upon what our society needs. I believe what happens is that the
students go through this piecemeal updating process, and the brightest
students go beyond what is publicly academically taught, they are
earmarked by the military and go into what is called Black Ops where they
are taught far more than what is in the White Ops on public display in
academia. And being in Black Ops they are of course held to oaths of
secrecy to not talk about the science they know.
In Summary it’s our politics that has had this influence on Science; its
serves the politicians that science should be a mess of scientists all
with incomplete understanding, mistaken beliefs about maths and science.
And in this political climate the exclusionists flourish. While the
correct approach should be building upon one established fact in science
to the next, what we have instead is a confusion of conflicting comments
from confused scientists who have had an education that has made them
confused.
I found that the Comic genius Charlie Chaplin summed up my position when
he said to Einstein: "I am applauded, because everybody understands me;
you are applauded, because nobody understands you."
Einstein was not understood during his lifetime; and a distorted version
of his theories is being taught at University.
There are scientists Pro-Einstein, and there are scientists Anti-Einstein.
But my stance is that these people have not understood Einstein properly.
Einstein has to be understood from a context of Boscovich.
I think I am the only person taking the stance that Einstein is a
Misunderstood Genius, who the Mainstream and Alternative Science
communities have not properly understood.
i.e. that the theories of Einstein have been misunderstood by practically
everyone.
Going back to the issue of the slapdash approach to maths that physicists
have taken, i.e. most of their science papers are full of mathematical
mistakes. But worst than that they don’t even correct the maths mistakes
they make and instead cite maths that is faulty in one article and
incorporate it into subsequent articles.
This bad maths seems to have started around the time Einstein became
famous. Einstein was well known as not being very good and maths, and his
articles are usually full of mistakes. He took a slapdash approach to
maths, and subsequent physicists that followed after him took the same
attitude. Whereas previously, before Einstein, a lot more care was
generally taken.
My science papers to General Science Journal are dealing with the maths,
so that when it comes to presenting the theory of UFT it is merely mostly
existing physics with the maths mistakes corrected.
That does not mean there are no surprises- most significantly – both
Galilean relativity and Special relativity are valid descriptive theories
of physical reality.
This is contrary to what is believed.
It is generally believed that Einstein’s Special relativity replaced
Galilean relativity, and that Galilean relativity does not work in as wide
a range of physical observations as Special relativity.
But there is a fundamental slip in the maths for this, and once this is
corrected then one sees that either theory works; a sort of relativity
between theories- either view physical observations through the
descriptive of Galilean relativity or Special relativity – because both
work.
Of course, even correcting for that mistake, the relativists have made
many more, so that really the Special relativity I am referring to needs a
total overhaul to correct the mistakes added to it by what is essentially
- too many cooks spoiling the broth.
As noted by someone at article Tesla's Dynamic theory of gravity (PowerPedia
where such comments as these are transient.):
"............Einstein's general relativity (the original relativity theory
came from R. Boscovich [1711-1787]), ......."
The point being the transition to Einstein's Relativity from Boscovich's
Relativity as made by the mainstream was full of mistakes.
Arthur Schopenhauer, explained that a new idea goes through 3 Stages
–First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is
accepted as self-evident. (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/cyc/l/law.htm)
Schopenhauer however seems unaware of the influence of scientists making
maths mistakes, and so after obtaining the UFT the scientists then engage
in making maths mistakes which makes them wander away from it.
I think the stages are more like: (1) Ignored (2) Ridiculed (3) mess up
the maths and (4) everyone making some additional maths mistake.
The true Unified Field Theory has been at Stage 1 and this has lasted over
Hundreds of Years.
My articles dealing with the maths are at General Science Journal-
Added May 25, 2006: A Re-Examination of the Concept of Ether in Relativity
Theory [PDF]
Explains that academia is mistaken when it says that the Ether does not
exist, because a form of the Ether concept is still consistent with
Special Relativity.
Added Oct. 10, 2006: Boscovich's Theory and Newton's Third Law [PDF]
Explains that Boscovich’s theory is the next step from Newton’s theory.
Added Jan. 2, 2007: Einstein, Ether and Unified Field [PDF]
Explains that Einstein’s Unified Field Theory is a type of Ether theory.
And
"An Analysis of Special Relativity from a Boscovichian Perspective"
Explains how Boscovich’s theory is connected to Einstein’s theories of
Relativity, with some of the mistakes in understanding that Academia have
made with Einstein.
These articles are at: http://www.wbabin.net/papers.htm
The debunkers have not been quiet, and they seem to now be starting a
Campaign against Unified Field Theory; seems like they might not be
interested with staying at Stage 1 and are preparing to move to Stage 2.
They are the same type of people who attacked Galileo (i.e. the
exclusionists ), and if they had their way we would still believe that the
world was flat.
We have had our science messed up by these people. And of course some of
it touches upon the religious issues around Evolution theory.
Some people "A" can look at evidence such as an eye and decide it was
designed by God, and others "B" don’t see it that way. Something goes on
in the head with thinking processes, and not everyone goes through the
same type of thinking processes.
In the Unified Field Theory of Whyte and Baranski the universe has an
organising process at work, some people interpret this as a natural part
of the Universe, while others interpret it as God (i.e. Intelligent
Designer). But the debunkers just want to go into denial.
Mendel Sachs in his book “Relativity in Our Time” briefly mentions
Boscovich as the starting point of Unified Field Theory since the
Copernican Revolution, he says:
“In the 18th century, a Jesuit priest, Roger Boscovich, introduced a new
approach to natural philosophy. He took the continuous manifestation of
matter, that is its power to act on other matter in space, to form a
fundamental starting point for a description of the material universe.
About 100 years later, Michael Faraday adopted this view of the continuous
field concept to describe electricity and magnetism most primitively.”
Thomas Bearden says about Mendel Sachs’ work:
“Sachs' theory essentially completes what Einstein started. It is a
unified field theory, from the space-time approach. Electrodynamics is a
part of it, so that for the very first time the interaction of gravitation
and electrodynamics is in the actual theory, in a fashion where one now
can speak of a model that will be usable for direct engineering.”
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/072900.htm
Boscovich’s theory is an extension to Newton’s theory, so those working on
that are essentially also working on this theoretical tradition; often
though they get confused over the relativity issue.
Now, let’s talk about Mind Control-- in THE KGB SECRET PARANORMAL FILES
presented by Roger Moore (ex- James Bond).
They briefly mentioned Einstein's Unified Field Theory as how Mind Control
works. It is such a brief a mention, that if you blinked then you missed
it; only they called it Einstein's wave-particle theory. (The
wave-particle being part of the unified field.)
Godel worked with Einstein on the Unified Field Theory, and apparently he
believed in conspiracy to suppress it:
“After Einstein's death in 1955, G[o]del became increasingly tormented by
fears of persecution, some of which were projected onto the great 17th
century German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz's work,
G[o]del insisted, had been villainously suppressed in order to "make men
stupid." He ate less and less, ostensibly for fear of being poisoned,
until finally he died of malnutrition, weighing a mere 65 pounds.”
from: http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/03/23/goldstein/index.html?pn=2
The completed version of Leibniz’s theory according to Bertrand Russell
was Boscovich’s theory (see Part 4 below). So, Godel was working on that
aspect of the theory, and because not all of the work of Leibniz has been
allowed into the public domain, Godel interpreted this as a conspiracy to
“make men stupid.” Of course the debunkers would like to dismiss this as
paranoia by Godel; but it probably happened the other way around he found
out there was a conspiracy and then he developed paranoia. As is well
known --- just because you are paranoid, it does not mean that people are
not out to get you.
Since Boscovich was a Catholic priest, I have been interested in looking
at what the modern Catholic Church is doing. There seem to be two groups:
traditionalists (keep things as they are) and reformers (update the
Church). However, whatever group a priest belongs to they are expected to
conform and obey those higher up in the hierarchy The larger group seem to
be the traditionalists and they have blocked most reforms. There also
seems to be a Secret agent James Bond type branch to the Catholic
priesthood; it seems very weird to think of priests involved in this sort
of activity. They have secrets they want to remain as secrets. Presumably
if the Catholic Church did reform then more would come out about the
Unified Field; as the situation is at the moment there is some
information.
Another issue is what is taught in science textbooks. Textbooks with each
new edition seem to be incorporating more and more errors; instead of
seeking to delete errors from previous books, the newer books seem to add
more. Richard Feynman noted in “Surely You are Joking Mr Feynman” the bad
quality of science textbooks.
It seems that the textbooks are controlled by what amounts to various
monopolies. On the farther out fringes of the Conspiracy theorists the
belief is that this corruption of textbooks is deliberate. It is this
corruption of science that is taught to each new generation of students,
and issues that should be considered as solved pointing to some conclusion
are messed up to state something else.
One of my main issue is that the Ether exists, and these textbooks are
erroneously saying it doesn’t exist. Looking at trying to explain this
more clearly has led me to non-Aristotleian Logic - which Van Vogt called
“null A” and became part of what was incorporated into Scientology.
Unfortunately leading into more deeper areas which the ill-informed
debunkers like to ridicule. (n.b. I am not agreeing with Scientology; from
what I am told it is very expensive to get involved in; but some taboo
ideas have entered into it.)
Aristotleian Logic is based upon there either being two answers – yes or
no; true or false.
Non-Aristotelian Logic is to not restrict oneself to this two-value Logic.
There are for instance examples where a yes/no answer is not appropriate.
For instance imagine a court case, a husband is asked to answer only yes
or no to the question: “have you stopped beating your wife.”
If the defendant answers no then the implication is that he is continuing
to beat his wife.
If he answers yes, then the implication is that he used to beat his wife.
Answers either yes or no, therefore condemns the husband.
It is an example of an inappropriate question.
i.e. it is an inappropriate question to ask in Aristotleian Logic system.
A similar situation occurs a lot in science.
In the case of the Ether— an experiment supposedly set up to say whether
the Ether exist – yes or no; is often inappropriate, because it can be
that the way that the Ether is being talked about is incorrect.
Thus in the famous Michelson- Morley experiment that supposedly disproves
the Ether according to these corrupted textbooks; the question put as to
wanting yes or no to question of Ether existence is inappropriate. As per
my Ether paper (above) I explain that the Ether can be talked about in at
least two different ways. It therefore depends upon how one talks about
the Ether, as to what the Michelson- Morley experiment is showing.
In the case of Aristotle, I have talked to a few people who think that
those following Aristotle (Aristotelians) have misunderstood Aristotle, so
when it comes to Aristotelian versus Non-Aristotelian; the need for
Non-Aristotelian is merely the fact that those following Aristotle have
misrepresented it. Similarly the case fror non-Einsteinian physics might
be said merely to be because those of today setting themselves up as
authorities on Einsteinian physics, have misrepresented Einsteinian
physics.
Boscovichian physics has its roots with Pythagoras; and the dispute there
with religion is that Pythagoras seems to be a version of pagan Sun
worship. Mainstream Christianity has been opposed to the Sun god religion,
despite Emperor Constantine believing that this was what Christianity was
dealing with, when he adopted it as the religion of the Roman Empire. And
despite it being known that Christianity adopted Christmas Day 25th
December from pagan Sungod religion, and adopted Sunday the holy day etc.
Jordan Maxwell has looked into the issue and explains that Christianity is
really the pagan Sungod religion. Of course the majority of Christians do
not treat their religion as pagan Sungod, and are opposed to such a
belief. So, it seems to be another case of people misunderstanding.
Instead of Christianity having adopted certain pagan ideas as most
believe, it might be that Christianity is a pagan religion that has been
misunderstood and changed into something else.
As to Pythagoras, the point-of-view there is of the Universe being
mathematical and musical – “the Music of the spheres.” In the quest for
ETI communication I have pointed out on a SETI website that this
communication might be being overlooked because it could be musical radio
signals that we should be looking for. See:
http://www.setiuniverse.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=207&z=7
So, what I am talking about here is quite incredible: a general scenario
of people getting things wrong, and then authority figures setting
themselves in these various areas to try to maintain the status quo of
keeping it being wrong.
Ideally one would think if a textbook came out with a few mistakes in it,
then the next textbook would try to correct those mistakes; but that’s not
what happens instead the next textbook adds more mistakes. There are
processes at work in society which wants more mistakes to be added to the
existing mistakes.
There is none as weird as folk; the world is weirder than we can imagine;
the folk in it all want to believe different things and when it comes to
evidence that contradicts what one might want to believe, these strange
folk either ignore it or pretend it means something else. It not just
Einstein that’s been misunderstood to fit with what some strange people
want to believe; but lots of other things as well. When it comes to issues
like ETIs -- its too far-out from what these strange folk want to believe.
I have discussed the issue with certain people and the conclusion is that
if ETIs were definitely known about then a large number would panic.
Rather than panic, strange people set about believing the contrary;
evidence means nothing to them; because they are the exclusionists.
Roger Anderton Aug 2008
c.RJAnderton2008 |
