Recovered:Elec Theory, Maxwells Formula, Tesla Scalar Vortex

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Recovered:Elec Theory, Maxwells Formula, Tesla Scalar Vo

Unread postby GaryN » Sun Dec 27, 2015 11:32 am

I have recently opened up my copy "A New Model of the Universe" by P.D.Ouspensky, a book I have had for years but put away after reading his first work, "The Fourth Dimension", as I was not impressed by it in the least. Don't know what made me dig it out again, but from what I have read so far, I think it was that it was me that was not ready for the book, rather than the book being nonsense. I only started last night on the chapter the book is named for. It is available as a pdf from this link, the relevant chapter begining on page 398. It would seem the content would fit very well with the discussion going on here.
http://selfdefinition.org/gurdjieff/Ous ... iverse.pdf
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Recovered:Elec Theory, Maxwells Formula, Tesla Scalar Vo

Unread postby jone dae » Sun Dec 27, 2015 8:52 pm

GaryN,
I want to ask this question, but I don't mean it in the way that an "admin" or "moderator" would. Would you tell me, please, what section of "the content" of NMU you thought "would fit very well with the discussion going on here. "
Perhaps I am typical of others here, who won't have the time to read the pdf right now, or, would want to know more about what is in it before reading it.
Personally, I only know two of Ouspensky's works well: In Search Of The Miraculous, and The Strange Life Of Ivan Osokin. The other two, The Fourth Dimension and A New Model Of the Universe, I have browsed many times in bookstores or libraries, but never read them cover-to-cover.
He also wrote a short book, almost a booklet, called The Psychology of Man's Possible Evolution, which is not about neo- or post-Darwinian evolution, as well. http://www.math.buffalo.edu/~sww/0Gurdj ... lution.pdf

Jone Dae
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Recovered:Elec Theory, Maxwells Formula, Tesla Scalar Vo

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Dec 28, 2015 12:36 pm

Hi Jone. I was not suggesting NMU had a direct bearing on the thread as a whole, but more to the ideas raised in the last two excellent posts by webolife and yourself, and regarding the origin, definition and meaning of the terms used in describing our models of the Universe, and how our own concepts and models of reality are affected by these models. I'm hoping to get a couple of quiet nights by the wood stove to have a more in depth look at his writings, will comment further if I find anything directly relevant to the thread topic itself. And thanks for that link too Jone, think I might need more firewood though!
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Recovered:Elec Theory, Maxwells Formula, Tesla Scalar Vo

Unread postby webolife » Tue Dec 29, 2015 9:47 am

webolife wrote:Jone, (may I address you thus?)
Do you think it is possible that distance, area and volume (ie. space, ie. geometry) are actual players in the "fabric" of the universe. How about "relative position", "density", "vector", "hierarchy", "energy level", "force", "entropy"... all of these are geometric constructs without which it is impossible to describe the material universe... is it possible that they are just as real as electrons, neutrons, and protons, or numerous subatomic particulates? Is it possible that time is just a perspective about space? Does time exist as anything other than a mental construct, or is it possible to describe events in space [reality] without reference to it?

jone dae wrote:webolife,
In your note, you asked several questions. First, let me say that I might be the wrong person to ask, but, since I was asked, we can explore those questions together if you still want to.
You gave some strings of terms, some in quotes, some without quotes. You want to know if they are "real" or "just as real as" (paraphrasing) each other and so on. Of course, we can see at first, that they are all words, and therefore, are real as words. And for each word, each of us has a corresponding idea in our mind. That idea is probably a complex of elements, for most of us. And of course, everyone knows that our ideas are not the same, and so, we use (more) words to determine which common definition of each word we may agree to.
So, in those sense they are all real and all as real as each other.
Beyond that - ? For instance, you have said that we need "geometrical" terms to describe the universe. Perhaps that is true, if we are restricted to the kind of sentences that scientists are expected to produce; but poets would describe things a different way; artists another; musicians still another. So, we work within many kinds of restriction.
So, in order to determine which terms are real, that is, which terms we agree refer to an object, entity, concept, etc., which in its turn we agree is real - we would have to examine each term one by one, and then record our agreements.
Most people are not willing to work even that much to gain clarity and accuracy; and so, there are some standing agreements in most areas of knowledge, and within each of the sciences.
In the physical sciences, the standing agreement is that, particles, atoms, molecules, etc., are real, and physical objects. Another standing agreement is that descriptive terms, whether geometric or not, are real as terms, and as concepts, and that is all. They have no other physical reality in the normally accepted agreements.
Next, there are agreements about measuring. One feature of an object that we can measure is called "length", another, "weight", another, "volume", and so on. Features that we cannot measure are considered sometimes, irrelevant, other times, imaginary, and still other times, non-existent. All of modern science is about measurement, and about measurable features and quantities. So, most of our descriptive terms are names we have agreed to call various kinds of measurements.
However, the descriptive terms are different kinds of words and concepts from the ones that are used to talk about the name or nature of an object, etc. For example, we would say something is its name, for example, the earth is a planet, but that it has a measurement, for example, the earth has a volume v, and so on. So, your list of various terms mixes together different kinds of terms, for which there are standing agreements about what kinds of terms they are and how they can be used.
For us to go any further then this, we would have to go back to the first method, and examine each term, one at a time, including the terms "real", "reality" and so on, and come to agreements about what they meant and how we could use them. If you want to do that, we would next have to ask ourselves (and the admin) if this is the right thread for that, or should we continue it in another thread that is about language usage in science and so on, or should we start a new thread, and so on.
Jone.

You are the right person to ask :)
I agree 100% with your reply, and for this reason propose to [or remind] all parties that physics at its roots is a philosophical endeavor, ie. I believe everyone begins with a set of presuppositions [I term it a faith base] and logically works through the available evidence/facts to a conclusion based on that set of assumptions. The more we are able to specify those premises, the more others will be able to understand our conclusions.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Recovered:Elec Theory, Maxwells Formula, Tesla Scalar Vo

Unread postby jone dae » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:40 am

-Quite.
User avatar
jone dae
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am
Location: Los Angeles

Previous

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest