|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On The Universe
RESPONDENT: You suggest asking oneself ‘how am I experiencing this moment?’ RICHARD: More specifically ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ (as this moment is the only moment one is ever alive). RESPONDENT: When I ask myself this, firstly there is the mental question; ‘how am I experiencing this moment?’ Then there is the attempt to answer it. The results are as follows: Experiencing the sensory world around me to some extent (there does seem to be levels of experiencing – I find I can ‘let in’ more if I sort of relax, get more sound more vision more feeling), experiencing the inner world to some extent (the light buzzy sensation in the body, perhaps a feeling in there; and again I can ‘go into it’) and then thinking about it or other things (which I can also do endlessly). Is one of these things more genuine than another? RICHARD: Nothing in the real-world is genuine (as in actually authentic, true, pure, bona fide, veritable, valid, non-counterfeit, non-fake, original, unadulterated, unalloyed, the real McCoy, and so on). RESPONDENT: I have no idea. It all seems to give me pleasure or pain depending on what’s going on. I’d say that thinking, imagining and feeling give me less pleasure than anything sensory, but then some thoughts I find ‘interesting’ (which is pleasurable) and some feelings I find ‘nice’ (like when I’m really happy). It’s all very confusing. What needs to go? RICHARD: Eventually ... everything. RESPONDENT: What needs to stay? RICHARD: Ultimately ... nothing. RESPONDENT: If the whole lot is to go, then how is it done? RICHARD: By asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) until it becomes a non-verbal attitude towards life, a wordless approach to being alive, so that the slightest deviation from the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition – a way epitomised by a felicitous naïve sensuousness – is not only automatically noticed almost immediately but the instance whereby the deviation occurred is readily ascertained such as to enable the resumption of one’s habituated blithesome and benign way again ... sooner rather than later. RESPONDENT: If it is asking yourself the question ‘how am I experiencing this moment?’ how does one let go of the answers, or the wrong answers? RICHARD: The whole point of asking oneself, each moment again until it becomes a non-verbal attitude or a wordless approach to life, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) is to experientially ascertain just exactly what way or manner it is in which one is personally participating in the events which are occurring at this particular moment that one is alive. Thus the answers you would obtain are experiential answers ... and are dependent on, on each occasion again, just exactly what the way or manner it is that you are personally participating in the occurrences which are currently happening. RESPONDENT: Why doesn’t the universe want to experience my pain, my thoughts, my boredom, my pleasure, etc? RICHARD: Or, more to the point, why do you want to? RESPONDENT: Or does it? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: (...) But the thing is that infinity cannot evolve/ improve and that’s why I’m sticking with this actual-list thing (more the actual than the list). Richard’s experience of life and my clouded glimpses of it, is superior to that of any dead or alive human ... not sure about all would-be humans. Hey Richard, if you state that as a fact or at least as an educated guess, you’ll become more than outrageous ... I’ll invent a new word to describe your claim: orgioutrageous. RICHARD: As the word ‘outrageous’ has the connotations of extraordinary, extreme, extravagant, and so on, and as your ‘orgi-’ prefix bespeaks of an intemperance characterised by or of the nature of excessive indulgence, it would appear that you do not fully grasp what a truly wonderful thing it is that infinitude is not subject to evolution or that perfection has no better. Both evolution and improvement are purely local events. RESPONDENT: Infinitude and perfection ... intrinsic characteristics of the universe. RICHARD: This universe, having the properties of being infinite and eternal, has no opposite ... hence the quality of perfection (no comparison). RESPONDENT: There’s no evolution for infinitude ... RICHARD: Aye ... a boundless expanse/ an unlimited time is not subject to growth, development, progression. RESPONDENT: ... [there’s no evolution for infinitude], but continuous transformation (matter-energy) ... RICHARD: No, the perdurable matter of this boundless expanse/ unlimited time can be either in its mass phase or energy phase ... the radiant energy (heat/ light) of the nearest star to this planet transforms into mass (woody material) in the process of impingement upon the chlorophyll-impregnated leaves of a tree, for instance, and that woody material (aka stored energy) transforms into heat/ light (aka released energy) upon ignition. The consumption of edible material (food), for another example, transforms mass into (calorific) energy ... in the form of (bodily) heat and (muscular) power. RESPONDENT: ... [but continuous transformation (matter-energy)] and propensity to evolve to the best possible ... RICHARD: I presume you are referring to a passage such as this:
RESPONDENT: ... [and propensity to evolve to the best possible] ... locally? RICHARD: No ... the perdurable matter of this boundless expanse/ unlimited time has a built-in propensity for the best form to emerge anywhere and everywhere (as far as space exploration has been able to ascertain). Thus, your sentence would now look something like this:
Put succinctly: matter itself, the very stuff of the universe, does not change, transmute, metamorphose or grow, develop, progress (or any other word of that ilk) ... it is the form, the shape or configuration, it takes which does. RESPONDENT: The universe, being infinite and perfect, still aims for betterment ... RICHARD: No ... the perfection of infinitude, being incomparable, has no better. RESPONDENT: ... [The universe, being infinite and perfect, still aims for betterment] but not on the scale of infinitude, yet everywhere locally. But everywhere locally means infinitude. This just does not make sense, a perfect and infinite universe trying to improve itself and thus evolve on a purely local level ... which in fact is universal level. RICHARD: As I never said that the perpetuum mobilis, which this infinite and eternal and perdurable universe is, is ‘trying to improve itself’ or ‘and thus evolve’ it is what you are proposing/ inferring which just does not make sense. RESPONDENT: How local is local according to you? RICHARD: In this instance I was referring to planet earth ... in accord with your choice of subject matter (the form known as human beings be they now dead, currently alive, or yet to be born). Vis.:
As there is no mass-energy in the form of human beings elsewhere in the universe (as far as space exploration has been able to ascertain) that is quite local indeed. Meanwhile, back to the subject to hand: do you now see why it need not be so extraordinary, extreme, extravagant, and so on, as to require a new word, that bespeaks of an intemperance characterised by or of the nature of excessive indulgence, were Richard to opine, as an informed hypothesis, that the on-going experience of being actually free from the human condition is superior to that of any human being within the human condition be they now dead, currently alive, or yet to be born? Here is a clue: to have reached the zenith, so to speak, in a universe where matter is not merely passive (inert), does not in any way, shape or form, imply stagnation. RESPONDENT: Good article, stating how GPS relies on relativity (Relativity in ‘everyday life’): www.physicscentral.com/writers/writers-00-2.html RICHARD: May I ask what you found good about how Mr. Clifford Will (one-sidedly) states it relies upon (Einsteinian) relativity in the article you provided a link to? RESPONDENT: ‘Good’ because it states the case well that Einsteinian relativity is applicable to ‘everyday life’. By posting the URL, I am by no means endorsing it as fact. RICHARD: Sure ... by posting what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say does not mean I am endorsing it as fact either. RESPONDENT: Understood – though I’m not at all sure that Clifford Will deserves the accusation of being ‘one-sided’. He is merely stating the evidence as he sees it – there is no need to take into account dissidents if one is already convinced. RICHARD: And do all those peoples who were convinced of geocentricity even after the publication of Mr. Nicolaus Copernicus’s ‘Six Books Concerning The Revolutions Of the Heavenly Orbits’ in 1543, and even after Mr. Galileo Galilei’s publication supporting heliocentricity via astronomical observations (‘Dialogue Concerning The Two Chief World Systems – Ptolemaic and Copernican’) in 1632, also not deserve the accusation ‘one-sided’, then? After all, they were merely stating the evidence as they see it, no? RESPONDENT: It is possible to be wrong, yet not ‘one-sided’. As I see it – the question is not whether Clifford Will is ‘one-sided’ – the question is whether he is correct. RICHARD: As the question as you see it is whether the proponent of the prevailing wisdom of the time – the Ptolemaic System in the above instance – is correct and not whether such a person is one-sided because they need not take into account the dissident – the one with the alternative system (the Copernican System in the above instance) – when they are already convinced then the following will surely be of interest:
It would appear that, at least since the end of the ‘Golden Era’ in 1980, Mr. Clifford Will has indeed been convinced the prevailing wisdom of the time is correct and does not need to take an alternative theory into account ever again. Which would mean that he is, after all, merely stating the evidence as he sees it, eh? * RESPONDENT: Here are a couple of URLs where it can be seen that No. 56 is correct about Mr Tom Bethell – who really is a conservative creationist ‘with an axe to grind’ so to speak. (snip). RICHARD: As Mr. Tom Bethell is a magazine columnist (somewhat akin to a newspaper reporter) writing about what Mr. Tom Van Flandern published it is beside the point what he is or is not as what is relevant is whether his summation in that magazine article (the part I quoted) is in accord with what Mr. Tom Van Flandern had to say or not ... and, speaking personally, the moment I read the article I went straight to the source and checked it out for myself. ‘Tis oh-so-easy to get side-tracked by red-herrings, eh? RESPONDENT: Maybe so – are you suggesting that I have been ‘side-tracked by red-herrings?’ RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? Nowhere in either your initial reply nor your second response did you refer directly to – let alone comment on – what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say. RESPONDENT: As I have not made up my mind yet about Tom Van Flandern and what he says about relativity’s role in the GPS – I would hardly say that pointing out Tom Bethell’s ‘agenda’ is a red-herring. RICHARD: Hmm ... the part of the magazine article I quoted could have been written by the columnist known as ‘Cassandra’, for example, without such an article (the part I quoted) detracting from what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say. RESPONDENT: Nowhere have I claimed that what Tom Bethell writes taints what Tom Van Flandern has to say. RICHARD: If I may point out? This, your third e-mail, is the first time you have even mentioned that Mr. Tom Van Flandern himself has something to say. RESPONDENT: You were clearly using what Tom Bethell had to say about Tom Van Flandern in your case to show that Clifford Will was being ‘one-sided’ so I simply wanted to point out Tom Bethell’s ‘agenda’ as noteworthy. RICHARD: I provided a part of a magazine article (the only part I quoted), which summarised what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say as what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say takes up many, many pages and can hardly be described as succinct or concise ... what is relevant is whether or not the magazine article’s summation (the part I quoted) is in accord with what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say and, speaking personally, the moment I read the article I went straight to the source and checked it out for myself as that is what I found noteworthy What you did, however, was locate the magazine article itself and post URL’s to me about both the article’s writer and other things written in that article (the parts I did not quote) because, apparently, that is what you found noteworthy. * RESPONDENT: As I have never personally worked on the GPS system – I do find interesting the perspective of those that have – just as I am quite interested in what Mr. Tom Bethell has to say about it. I have located his article you referred to – of which I was previously unaware. I am happy to see relativity go by the wayside if need be, but it seems to me that there first must be a convincing alternative to what is normally offered as ‘confirmation’ of Einsteinian relativity. RICHARD: What I see, being but a lay-person in all these matters, is theoretical physicists, mathematicians, logicians, and so on, discussing amongst themselves the validity/ invalidity of this theory and that theory and any other theory ... when they start presenting equations to each other (I do not even know what most of the symbols refer to) I have no recourse, other than to read what they have to say in general, but to observe that such-and-such a topic is by no means settled. The democratic process – as in majority rules – which works well enough in the political arena at the present stage of human development has no valid application in science. RESPONDENT: The more I think about it, the more I think you could be wrong about this. What is fact is not so because the majority think it true, but isn’t it possible that the majority think something true because it actually IS true? RICHARD: Somehow I am reminded of that passage in Mr. Rudyard Kipling’s ‘Jungle Book’ where the Bandar-log (the monkeys) all shout, twenty at a time, to Mowgli (the man-cub) ‘we all say so, and so it must be true’ and ‘this is true; we all say so’. RESPONDENT: I’m not sure why you are reminded of that passage – as it doesn’t illustrate anything I actually said. Maybe I can be more clear about what I meant so as to avoid confusion. Just because the majority think something is true does not make it true – and it doesn’t count as evidence for it to be true. Even so there are times where the reason that the majority think something is true is because it IS true. Take geocentrism for example, prior to Copernicus the majority view was wrong – which demonstrates that the majority can be wrong. Today, the majority think that Copernicus was right, mainly because he WAS right – that is, the cause goes from the fact to the widely shared view. RICHARD: As the equivocation in your clarification (‘just because the majority think something is true does not make it true’/ ‘even so there are times where the reason that the majority think something is true is because it IS true’) is essentially the same as the equivocation in your initial response (‘what is fact is not so because the majority think it true’/ ‘but isn’t it possible that the majority think something true because it actually IS true’) there remains only your example – ‘prior to Copernicus the majority view was wrong’/ ‘today the majority think that Copernicus was right’ – to add the clarity you speak of so as to illustrate why that passage does not illustrate anything you actually said. As what you actually said was that the more you think about it [think about me saying that the democratic process – as in majority rules – has no valid application in science] the more you think I could be wrong about this [could be wrong about the democratic process – as in majority rules – having no valid application in science] it makes no difference at all what example you provide where who the majority think is right is right mainly because they are right as it still does not make the democratic process – as in majority rules – have a valid application in science ... whoever is right is only ever right if what they have to say be in accord with the fact. Needless is it to say that, because of your clarification, I am more than ever reminded of that passage? * RICHARD: I only ask because there was, apparently, an intriguing controversy which he would have to be cognisant of that arose before the Global Positioning System (GPS) was even launched as Einsteinian relativity gave reason to doubt whether it would work at all. There was an article written by Mr. Tom Bethell, in ‘The American Spectator’, which referred to a paper published in ‘Physics Letters A’ (December 21, 1998) written by Mr. Tom Van Flandern, a research associate in the physics department at the University of Maryland, who worked as a special consultant to the GPS in the 1990’s. Here is part of what Mr. Tom Bethell had to say:
What I found interesting about what Mr. Tom Van Flandern had to say was that Lorentzian relativity (where velocity is subsumed under time and space in contrast to Einsteinian relativity subsuming time and space under velocity) is not only the more simple theory to represent the process the GPS operates by – and not only for pragmatic reasons – but is of major importance for the future of physics. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: I was unaware of the controversy – thanks for bringing it to my attention. RICHARD: Oh, there are quite often such controversies in many areas ... for example, when the first uranium bomb was detonated in ‘Project Manhattan’, there was reason for some physicists to be concerned (at the time) that a chain reaction might be set-off in the atmosphere and engulf the entire planet. That it did not indicates that whatever it is that happens in such a bomb is peculiar to uranium (and not contagious, so to speak). * RICHARD: It would seem that the jury is still out on this – and other – matters. RESPONDENT: Yes. At least some of the ‘jury’ is still out – others have returned, and they are contradicting each other :o) RICHARD: Aye ... and, presumably, on and on it will go (we could post URL’s to each other until the cows come home and still the matter would be not settled either way). RESPONDENT: Possibly – or possibly it might get settled by looking further at the evidence. One doesn’t know until it is examined. RICHARD: The ... um ... ‘the evidence’ in this particular instance is what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say (and not ‘the evidence’ regarding a magazine columnist) ... and what I found interesting was that he says Lorentzian relativity (where velocity is subsumed under time and space, in contrast to Einsteinian relativity subsuming time and space under velocity), is not only the more simple *theory* to represent the process the GPS operates by – and not only for pragmatic reasons – but is of major importance for the future of physics. Some years ago, whilst in a government office for bureaucratic reasons, I noticed a rather droll sign (which could very well have been a bumper sticker) propped up on a nearby clerk’s desk which asked what would happen if one were to switch on the headlights in a space-ship travelling at the speed of light. RESPONDENT: I find ‘Lorentizian relativity’ interesting too – as the concept is new to me. RICHARD: May I ask what it is that you find interesting about what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say about Lorentzian relativity? The reason I ask is because, being but a lay-person, I cannot mathematically know whether Mr. Clifford Will is right, in regards Einsteinian relativity being the better model for the GPS, or whether Mr. Tom Van Flandern is right, in regards Lorentzian relativity being the better model for the GPS, and, apart from drawing attention to the fact that there are (at least) two models being proposed, I am suggesting it is important to remember they are both models (just as the various theories regarding the sub-atomic postulates of quantum theory, for example, also are). What is actually happening to the rubidium and caesium in the clocks on board the satellites – why such highly reactive chemical elements ‘tick’ faster than when on earth in a stronger gravitational field – may very well be entirely something else, of course, as mathematical models are only models ... could it be that the measure of time (the rubidium and caesium in this instance) is what is ‘ticking’ faster and not time itself advancing more quickly? I only mention this because this moment has no duration here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Again, I have not yet made up my mind on it though – and from what I can tell – it may take quite a while on this one. RICHARD: Okay ... the reason why I linked what I found interesting in what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say about Lorentzian relativity with a rather droll sign (which asked what would happen if one were to switch on the headlights in a space-ship travelling at the speed of light) that I noticed propped up on a nearby clerk’s desk, whilst in a government office for bureaucratic reasons some years ago, could be put like this:
I ask this because, according to Einsteinian relativity (in direct contrast to Lorentzian relativity), the force of the impact would only be the same as a .96c collision with a stationary object. * RESPONDENT: Whereas ‘the evidence’ I had in mind is the purported evidence for relativity – in this context specifically what Clifford Will has to say. RICHARD: Yet what does Mr. Clifford Will offer in the way of ‘the evidence’ on the web page you provided a link to? Other than merely stating that time on a GPS satellite clock advances about a net rate of 38 microseconds per day faster than a clock on the ground (because Mr. Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity says that rapidly moving clocks tick more slowly and his general relativity theory says that gravity curves space and time resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks to tick faster) such that navigational errors would [quote] ‘accumulate faster than 10 km per day!’ [endquote] unless the Einsteinian relativistic offset in the rates of the satellite clocks be compensated? I ask this because, apart from also saying that without the proper application of Einsteinian relativity the GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes and that when one lands at an airport one might, therefore, think of Mr. Albert Einstein, he adds nothing to an understanding of why he chose that example to be the *only* example he provides for his own question ‘what good is fundamental physics to the person on the street’. Speaking as a person on the street I was left none the wiser ... which is why I asked what you found [quote] ‘good’ [endquote] about that article. * RICHARD: What I do find cute, in all this, is that my report/ description of this actual world sometimes attracts those who want scientific proof of something experiential – whilst oft-times proffering mathematical proof, as to why the experiential evidence is invalid, in lieu of scientific proof (as if they were one and the same thing) into the bargain – and disregard what I actually have to say ... so on occasion, to give but one example, I point out that mathematics do not describe the universe and that a mathematical equation has no existence outside of the ratiocinative process. How someone – anyone – could consider that a mathematical computation (or any abstract logic for that matter) renders experiential evidence null and void has got me beat ... because when I go to bed each night I have had, as always, a perfect day. And I do not use the word ‘perfect’ lightly. RESPONDENT: I understand what you are saying here as a bid for ‘experiential evidence’ over abstract logic as it applies to your experience of an actual freedom. RICHARD: No, what I am saying is that, from time-to-time, some peoples inform me that the direct experience of actuality, such as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), is invalid because a mathematical computation, or any abstract logic for that matter, devised by a person who (apparently) does not comprehend that mathematics do not describe the universe, or that a mathematical equation has no existence outside of the ratiocinative process, renders that experiential evidence null and void. RESPONDENT: Are you referring to relativity? RICHARD: I am referring to some peoples informing me that the direct experience of infinitude here in this actual world is invalid because of a notion drawn from a mathematical computation (the ‘big bang’ theory) based upon a mathematical computation (the ‘expanding universe’ theory) based upon a mathematical computation (the ‘general relativity’ theory). RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if relativity were fact, then an actual freedom would be impossible? RICHARD: I am not saying that ... those who seek to disallow the direct experience of eternity – such as in a PCE – are saying that (in effect if not specifically spelt-out). RESPONDENT: Or are you referring to the ‘mathematical computations’ involved in the ‘big-bang’ theory? RICHARD: Also those ... how someone – anyone – could consider that a mathematical computation (or any abstract logic for that matter) renders experiential evidence null and void has got me beat because when I go to bed each night I have had, as always, a perfect day. And I do not use the word ‘perfect’ lightly ... only that which is peerless can be perfect. RESPONDENT: I’m not following what you are saying because I don’t know of any mathematical computation that some people might use to try to invalidate your experience. RICHARD: This is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say:
This is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say about Mr. Georges Lemaitre in regard discovering solutions to Mr. Albert Einstein’s mathematical equations (aka mathematical computations):
I know that I have referred to the following before (only I provided an internet reference back then) but perhaps its import may become more apparent with a second reading:
Maybe the reason why actualists keep on seeing spiritualists under the bed is because there are indeed spiritualists under the bed? * RESPONDENT: Fine. What is being offered for confirmation of relativity is ‘experiential evidence’ – observation – confirmation. RICHARD: You are aware that the topic under dispute is whether or not the universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal, and materially perdurable (and not just Einsteinian relativity per se)? RESPONDENT: I was not aware that of that, no. RICHARD: Oh? Why would Einsteinian relativity be such a hot topic on this mailing list, then, if not because of my oft-repeated observation that the infinitude of the universe is directly experienced here in this actual world? Just curious. RESPONDENT: Do you say that because of your reasoning below? RICHARD: Perhaps an example may be of assistance: I first came onto the internet, in 1997, to share my discovery with my fellow human being ... and in a very short time the following exchange happened:
That instance, in 1997, was but the very first of several such occasions when another would skip past my ‘only this moment exists/ this moment has no duration’ (eternity is here on earth in this actual world and not in some other dimension) observation, written as the direct experience of it is happening, and seize upon my ‘this physical universe is eternal (and infinite)’ observation so as to present mathematical proofs (abstract computations) as to why the physical moment cannot be eternal (have no duration) because the mathematical equations ‘prove’ the existence of an underlying reality (as in my co-respondent’s ‘what makes the universe possible may indeed be something of an infinite, eternal nature’ comment above) which timelessly manifests all phenomena. Mr. Victor Stenger has written a book called ‘Timeless Reality’ wherein he makes it quite clear that what he too calls the underlying reality of all time, all space, and all form (the overlying reality) is timeless. Vis.:
That clearly speaks of a beginningless and endless (aka uncreated) reality – a reality that just is – which isness may or may not have many universes (many overlying realities) manifesting as time and space and form (all phenomena) ... for example:
As he elsewhere adjudges fellow And, as all this is ‘proved’ by mathematical computations, the direct experience of actuality is therefore (supposedly) invalided. * RICHARD: I only ask because the whole notion of it not being so comes out of the ‘big bang’ theory ... which is based upon the ‘expanding universe’ theory which was based upon Mr. Albert Einstein’s relativity theory ... it is, in other words, a notion drawn from a mathematical computation based upon a mathematical computation based upon a mathematical computation. RESPONDENT: Just so I am clear on this – are you saying that since the ‘big-bang’ theory is false (according to you) that also entails that relativity is false? RICHARD: As the mathematical ‘big bang’ theory proposes that there be a beginning to all time, all space, and all form – and a universe which has a beginning is not an eternal universe by any description – and as the ‘big bang’ theory is based upon the mathematical ‘expanding universe’ theory, which is itself based upon the mathematical ‘general relativity’ theory, it would appear that Mr. Albert Einstein’s relativity is indeed false if only for that reason. However, I would suggest it is false for the far more pragmatic reason it is a subjective interpretation of what actually happens. RESPONDENT: The ‘big-bang’ theory may need the theory of relativity – but I wasn’t aware that the theory of relativity needs the big-bang. RICHARD: I am not suggesting it does. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if relativity is fact, then that implies that the ‘big-bang’ would have to be fact as well? RICHARD: I am not saying that ... those who seek to disallow the direct experience of eternity – such as in a PCE – are saying that (if they did not I would not go looking up such things in encyclopaedias and other places). * RICHARD: And the ‘experiential evidence’ you refer to are theories and not observation (for example ‘red-shifted galaxies’ is the observation; ‘galaxies moving away at high speeds’ is the theory, or, for another instance ‘microwave radiation’ is the observation; ‘cosmic background radiation’ is the theory). RESPONDENT: Yet I am not referring to ‘experiential evidence’ for the ‘big-bang’ as you outline here – I am talking about ‘experiential evidence’ for relativity of the kind proposed by Clifford M Will in the link I previously provided and his book ‘Was Einstein Right?’ – personally, I’m leaving the ‘big-bang’ theory out of the discussion as it seems better to treat the two separately – though I do realize that relativity is needed for the big bang – though not the other way around. RICHARD: Speaking personally I am not at all concerned about either the big bang theory or
the relativity theory – or quantum theory for that matter – and it is only when my fellow human being chooses to
settle for second best because of a man sitting in a patents office nearly Quite frankly, I would rather sit and watch paint dry on a wall than read about the imaginative/ intuitive speculations of theoretical physicists. * RESPONDENT: Why do you continue to dispute it? RICHARD: Because I care about my fellow human being and want only the best for them ... to settle for second-best because of mathematical theories, or because of any abstract logic for that matter, is absurd. RESPONDENT: I do understand this – but I’m specifically asking about what reasons you have for rejecting the evidence (of the type offered by Clifford Will) for relativity alone. RICHARD: Mainly because mathematical theories, or any abstract logic for that matter, are a poor substitute for the actual * RESPONDENT: Is it impossible for Einsteinian relativity and an actual freedom to coexist? If so, why? RICHARD: As this is somewhat similar to asking me if the Ptolemaic System RESPONDENT: Ok, let me ask it a different way – specifically why do you reject the ‘evidence’ (of the kind offered by Clifford Will in this case) for Einsteinian relativity? RICHARD: Science is, or is supposed to be, objective. RESPONDENT: Would you say that the theory of relativity is of such a nature that it could never possibly be confirmed? RICHARD: As I am not a mathematician I will defer to Mr. Tom Van Flandern here (from the same page I previously quoted from):
I would hazard a guess that it is well-nigh impossible to either confirm or disconfirm a mathematical theory which is internally consistent and (mathematically) non-contradictory. Which is perhaps why it has such a hold on otherwise intelligent peoples. RICHARD: May I ask what it is that you find interesting about what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say about Lorentzian relativity? RESPONDENT: Sure, what I find interesting about what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say about Lorentzian relativity is his claim that it can account for all the ‘evidence’ that is purported to demonstrate Einstein’s relativity theory as fact. Not only that, but his statement is that we are allowed to keep more ‘common-sense’ notions about time and space, gravity, and so forth. RICHARD: Okay ... now what Mr. Paul Marmet has to say about the GPS and the (supposed) constant velocity of light for all observers, which constancy is central to Einstein relativity, throws more light (no pun intended) upon his claim that Newtonian physics can also account for all the evidence which is purported to demonstrate the facticity of Einstein relativity (as well as keeping the more commonsense notions about time and space and gravity and so forth). Vis.: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/Illusion/ I did make the comment, in an earlier e-mail, that we could post URL’s to each other until the cows came home and the matter would still not be settled ... and the point I am making by providing this particular link (just as I did with the Mr. Tom Van Flandern link) is that, being but a lay-person in all these matters, what I see is theoretical physicists, mathematicians, logicians, and so on, discussing amongst themselves the validity/ invalidity of this theory and that theory and any other theory. And, as I also commented before, when they start presenting equations to each other (I do not even know what most of the symbols refer to) I have no recourse, other than to read what they have to say in general, but to observe that such-and-such a topic is by no means settled. In other words those who seek to disallow the direct experience of infinitude – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – by telling me that the universe is not infinite, eternal, and perpetual (such as in the 1997 e-mail exchange I quoted from in my last post) because of this theory or that theory or any other theory might as well take up kite-flying in their spare time. * RICHARD: ... apart from drawing attention to the fact that there are (at least) two models being proposed, I am suggesting it is important to remember they are both models (just as the various theories regarding the sub-atomic postulates of quantum theory, for example, also are). RESPONDENT: I do take (and appreciate) your point here that not only are you pointing out that there are two models purporting to fit the same data, but also that both are ‘models’. Do you know the phrase/ term ‘underdetermination of theory by data’? RICHARD: No ... and, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica has no reference to it (nor does any dictionary, other than the Oxford Dictionary, list the word ‘underdetermination’), a search of the internet tended to show that the ‘underdetermination of theory by data’ thesis is an argument which has often been used to combat scientific realism and, as such, is more a philosophical issue about indeterminacy than anything else. For example:
I will first draw your attention to the following exchange:
And then to this exchange:
In short: there is a third alternative to either agnosticism or fideism. * RICHARD: ... could it be that the measure of time (the rubidium and caesium in this instance) is what is ‘ticking’ faster and not time itself advancing more quickly? I only mention this because this moment has no duration here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Do I understand correctly that you are saying that since ‘this moment has no duration here in this actual world’ – that it is simply not possible for ‘time itself [to be] advancing more quickly? RICHARD: Exactly ... have you never noticed it is never not this moment? If I understand it correctly caesium, to take but one example, has an innate resonant frequency and it is the ‘ticking’ of this frequency which is used to define a second (officially recognised as being 9,192,631,770 oscillations) in the energy-clocks on board the satellites ... and I say ‘energy-clocks’, as contrasted to ‘astronomical-clocks’, for the ‘what-is-it-that-is-ticking-faster’ reason already mentioned. Presumably someone in the mists of pre-history noticed what the shadow of a stick standing perpendicular in the ground did such as to eventually lead to the sundial – a circular measure of the movement of a cast shadow arbitrarily divided into twelve sections because of a prevailing duo-decimal counting system – and thus to water-clocks/ sand-clocks and thence to pendulum-clocks/ spring-clocks and thus to electrical-clocks/ electronic-clocks and, currently, atomic-clocks (‘energy-clocks’) ... with all such measurement of movement being a measure of the earth’s rotation whilst in orbit around a radiant star. In short: it is not time itself which moves (thus it neither speeds up nor slows down) but objects
through space ... this moment is the arena, so to speak, in which things happen and time (as in past/ present/ future)
is a measure of what occurs * RICHARD: ... the reason why I linked what I found interesting in what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say about Lorentzian relativity with a rather droll sign (which asked what would happen if one were to switch on the headlights in a space-ship travelling at the speed of light) that I noticed propped up on a nearby clerk’s desk, whilst in a government office for bureaucratic reasons some years ago, could be put like this: 1. Suppose a vehicle travelling at 75 kilometres an hour (75k) has a head-on crash with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction also at 75k ... would the collision, the force of the impact, be the same as just the one vehicle crashing into a stationary object at 150k? 2. If so, now suppose a vehicle travelling at three-quarters the speed of light (.75c) has a head-on crash with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction also at .75c ... would the collision, the force of the impact, be the same as just the one vehicle crashing into a stationary object at 1.50c? I ask this because, according to Einsteinian relativity (in direct contrast to Lorentzian relativity), the force of the impact would only be the same as a .96c collision with a stationary object. RESPONDENT: I simply don’t know enough about it to comment on this issue. RICHARD: In the last 20-30 years a lot of research and development has gone into making vehicles safer for the occupants through designing better ways to have the material a vehicle is made of crumple, fore and aft of the section people are occupying, so as to better absorb the energy of the rapid deceleration occasioned by an impact ... and the same applies to making crash-barriers more flexible and thus more absorbent of that energy. Yet according to Einsteinian relativity the faster a vehicle travels (the more it accelerates) the less force it has (the less deceleration energy there is) ... so much so that, rather than ‘speed kills’, the safety slogans of science fiction traffic authorities should probably read ‘speed saves’, eh? All joking aside however ... where *does* all that energy go (if not into the force of the impact)? RESPONDENT: I suppose that I should make it clear that I am not claiming that Einsteinian relativity is fact. RICHARD: Sure ... what you are (or were) claiming, however, is that the article at the link you initially provided which started this thread was a [quote] ‘good’ [endquote] article about Einsteinian relativity. Given that you do not know enough about it to comment on the (above) issue are you still claiming that? RESPONDENT: What I would say definitively though, is that there has been a good deal of evidence over the last 100 years or so that has been proposed as proving that Einsteinian relativity is fact. My intention in this conversation is merely to explore the reasons you say what you say, to understand why you dispute relativity and the purported evidence for it. It is delightful for me to discover that there are other models to explain what has been purportedly evidence for Einsteinian relativity. If one doesn’t understand that there are other models available or possible, it is indeed difficult to jettison what the most respected scientists are calling proof of relativity – so I appreciate this chance to learn more about what and why you are saying what you are about relativity. RICHARD: For what it is worth I was not cognisant of the general relativity theory/ expanding-contracting universe theory/ big-bang-big-crunch theory until I went public on the internet, other than a vague recollection that there had been a person called Mr. Albert Einstein who was held in high esteem for matters I knew virtually nothing of and was concerned even less about, whereupon I was told (in the 1997 e-mail exchange I quoted from in my last post) that the universe is not infinite, eternal, and perpetual because of the ‘expanding universe’ theory and, as a post-script, was challenged to explain quasars and pulsars (both of which I had never heard of before). In other words it never occurred to me all those years ago that, as Mr. Albert Einstein’s mathematical model proved the universe not to be infinite, eternal, and perpetual, I would be unable to ever become actually free from the human condition and naively went ahead and did so anyway. Ain’t life grand! * RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if relativity were fact, then an actual freedom would be impossible? RICHARD: I am not saying that ... those who seek to disallow the direct experience of eternity – such as in a PCE – are saying that (in effect if not specifically spelt-out). RESPONDENT: I am trying to understand exactly how those who claim relativity is a fact seek to ‘disallow the direct experience of eternity’. RICHARD: Simply this: as Mr. Albert Einstein’s mathematics prove the universe is expanding (and hence had a beginning and thence an ending) it cannot be eternal ... and, as Richard is but a scientific buffoon (or whatever other unsolicited character references Richard’s report sometimes elicit), then Mr. Albert Einstein, who had to virtuously practice pacifism so as to achieve some outward semblance of peace and harmony whilst Richard is effortlessly, and thus unvirtuously, happy and harmless, must be right and Richard must be wrong. And, as Richard is wrong, then the person writing to Richard can carry-on living life in the normal way (vainly trying to be virtuous). RESPONDENT: I can only guess that it is because relativity requires a measure of duration (from multiple subjective frames of reference), while there is no such thing in the direct experience of eternity? RICHARD: This moment has no duration here in this actual world ... but I doubt that those who seek to disallow the direct experience of eternity are conscious of that when they write to me. My guess is they are just uncritically regurgitating what they were taught at school. * RICHARD: You are aware that the topic under dispute is whether or not the universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal, and materially perdurable (and not just Einsteinian relativity per se)? RESPONDENT: I was not aware that of that, no. RICHARD: Oh? Why would Einsteinian relativity be such a hot topic on this mailing list, then, if not because of my oft-repeated observation that the infinitude of the universe is directly experienced here in this actual world? Just curious. RESPONDENT: I originally thought that it was only the big-bang theory that contradicted your experience – but I see now that you are saying that relativity (by itself regardless of the big bang theory) contradicts your experience. I do understand that Einsteinian relativity is intertwined with the big-bang theory, so I thought that is why relativity is such a ‘hot topic’. Though I also went into this conversation understanding that the big-bang theory depends on relativity, I also thought it is possible that relativity could be correct, without necessarily implying that the big-bang theory is correct. RICHARD: Put specifically: that the universe is expanding is inextricably part and parcel of Mr. Albert Einstein’s equations ... the big-bang theory came later and arose out of the implications of that mathematical artefact. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: So, I have been particularly interested in focusing on relativity excluding the big-bang theory – so that I could understand just exactly where you say relativity goes wrong. RICHARD: In short: the universe is neither expanding nor contracting. RESPONDENT: According to what you are saying now, you are saying that Einstein’s theory of relativity directly contradicts your experience, correct? RICHARD: Correct. RESPONDENT: So, I want to ask – specifically how does Einstein’s relativity alone contradict: 1) The universe is spatially infinite & 2) The universe is temporally eternal. RICHARD: An expanding universe is neither spatially infinite nor temporally eternal. * RESPONDENT: Would you say that the theory of relativity is of such a nature that it could never possibly be confirmed? RICHARD: As I am not a mathematician I will defer to Mr. Tom Van Flandern here (from the same page I previously quoted from): [quote]: ‘What we have just described are careful and correct inferences of SR [Einsteinian relativity] as applied to the twin’s paradox. This also shows the essentially mathematical nature of the theory, because it does violence to what we fondly call ‘common sense’. The most important point to note carefully is that *the theory is internally consistent, and no mathematical contradictions can be found* no matter how the transformation equations are manipulated, or how many frames or twins are introduced. The next important point to note is that SR makes demands on our credulity that LR [Lorentzian relativity] does not. Let’s examine why ...’. [emphasis added]. I would hazard a guess that it is well-nigh impossible to either confirm or disconfirm a mathematical theory which is internally consistent and (mathematically) non-contradictory. Which is perhaps why it has such a hold on otherwise intelligent peoples. RESPONDENT: OK – I would just like to sum up what I understand of why you object to Einstein’s relativity: 1) It is a subjective theory. 2) Relativity is an abstraction, and as such cannot apply directly to the actual world, it is but a conceptual model. 3) There are other models that can fit the data, so no evidence can be conclusive for a given conceptual model. 4) Relativity denies the direct experience of eternity (how as of yet, I don’t know) and the direct experience of the infinity of space (how as of yet, I don’t know). RICHARD: That pretty well sums up why Einsteinian relativity is irrelevant to actualism ... and I will take this opportunity to point out that if it were not for those who seek to disallow the direct experience of infinitude the matter would not be a topic on this mailing list. I have had to research all manner of things for other people since I first went public with my discovery. RESPONDENT: I would also like to point out that I understand that you are not necessarily advocating Mr Tom Van Flandern’s views on relativity – merely pointing out that there are as of yet competing conceptual models, but that to accept a conceptual model as True is but to trade in the actual for a mathematical / conceptual theory. RICHARD: Yes ... and I am not necessarily advocating all of Mr. Paul Marmet’s claims
either because I personally favour the ‘electric-cosmos’ hypothesis ‘Tis only an opinion, though.
Footnotes: (1.)Mr. Victor Stenger elsewhere adjudges fellow theoretical physicists:
(2.)It is known that it was in a patents office that Mr. Albert Einstein had the happiest thought of his life because he had the following to say in Japan in 1922 (in a lecture known as the ‘Kyoto Address’):
‘Tis for reasons such as that I suggest the relativity theory might be better described as the
subjectivity theory. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• (3.)time (as in past/ present/ future) is a measure of what occurs:
(4.)the ‘electric-cosmos’ hypothesis:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/ •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust 1997-2001 |
