Options

Potentially revolutionary theories

2»

Comments

  • 51.
    edited May 2011

    In the AD&D world there is supposed to be a large area below the earth where a lot of monsters and strange civilizations live, the "underdark", the equivalent of space in science fiction, for gamers to explore. Viconia is a dark elf who wasn't used to live on the surface, and the writers did a very good job to convey what this character is about with a few lines of dialog.

    ...people are terrified of the constant unknown, and in confusion wage wars, take drugs, and ignore what surrounds us.

    I think this statement is very interesting from a pyschologist's viewpoint. First, humans tend to materialize diffuse fears, for various reasons. Children who are afraid don't say "I'm afraid for no good reason!", they say "there is a monster under my bed!". Everybody can understand what a monster is and why one should be afraid of it. Once others have been convinced of its existence, the monster can be dragged into the light and be defeated, as almost every monster movie shows (the convincing is usually the hard part, once all team up, the dragging into the light happens fast, the defeating is then a piece of cake). The author seems to be in an intermediate state somewhere close to the end of the first act of the movie, where it is clear that there is an unkown and unlocalized danger lurking in the dark parts of the wood. While its nature is unkown, its presence is already disrupting society (people stay at home at night and have their weapons ready).

    The second cornerstone of the above statement is "empathy running wild", or the idea that what I feel and think, and what the people I interact with acknowledge, has to be universal.

    Since both parts appeal to shared emotion instead of shared information, a "trained scientist" will call it irrational and dismiss it.

    Comment Source:In the AD&D world there is supposed to be a large area below the earth where a lot of monsters and strange civilizations live, the "underdark", the equivalent of space in science fiction, for gamers to explore. Viconia is a dark elf who wasn't used to live on the surface, and the writers did a very good job to convey what this character is about with a few lines of dialog. <blockquote> <p> ...people are terrified of the constant unknown, and in confusion wage wars, take drugs, and ignore what surrounds us. </p> </blockquote> I think this statement is very interesting from a pyschologist's viewpoint. First, humans tend to materialize diffuse fears, for various reasons. Children who are afraid don't say "I'm afraid for no good reason!", they say "there is a monster under my bed!". Everybody can understand what a monster is and why one should be afraid of it. Once others have been convinced of its existence, the monster can be dragged into the light and be defeated, as almost every monster movie shows (the convincing is usually the hard part, once all team up, the dragging into the light happens fast, the defeating is then a piece of cake). The author seems to be in an intermediate state somewhere close to the end of the first act of the movie, where it is clear that there is an unkown and unlocalized danger lurking in the dark parts of the wood. While its nature is unkown, its presence is already disrupting society (people stay at home at night and have their weapons ready). The second cornerstone of the above statement is "empathy running wild", or the idea that what I feel and think, and what the people I interact with acknowledge, has to be universal. Since both parts appeal to shared emotion instead of shared information, a "trained scientist" will call it irrational and dismiss it.
  • 52.

    This ee cummings poem came to mind reading this thread. Especially the phrase "a climbing fall into far near blue".


    if up's the word;and a world grows greener if up's the word;and a world grows greener minute by second and most by more- if death is the loser and life is the winner (and beggars are rich but misers are poor) -let's touch the sky: with a to and a fro (and a here there where)and away we go in even the laziest creature among us a wisdom no knowledge can kill is astir- now dull eyes are keen and now keen eyes are keener (for young is the year,for young is the year) -let's touch the sky: with a great(and a gay and a steep)deep rush through amazing day it's brains without hearts have set saint against sinner; put gain over gladness and joy under care- let's do as an earth which can never do wrong does (minute by second and most by more) -let's touch the sky: with a strange(and a true) and a climbing fall into far near blue if beggars are rich(and a robin will sing his robin a song)but misers are poor- let's love until noone could quite be(and young is the year,dear)as living as i'm and as you're -let's touch the sky: with a you and a me and an every(who's any who's some)one who's we
    Comment Source:This ee cummings poem came to mind reading this thread. Especially the phrase "a climbing fall into far near blue". ~~~~ if up's the word;and a world grows greener if up's the word;and a world grows greener minute by second and most by more- if death is the loser and life is the winner (and beggars are rich but misers are poor) -let's touch the sky: with a to and a fro (and a here there where)and away we go in even the laziest creature among us a wisdom no knowledge can kill is astir- now dull eyes are keen and now keen eyes are keener (for young is the year,for young is the year) -let's touch the sky: with a great(and a gay and a steep)deep rush through amazing day it's brains without hearts have set saint against sinner; put gain over gladness and joy under care- let's do as an earth which can never do wrong does (minute by second and most by more) -let's touch the sky: with a strange(and a true) and a climbing fall into far near blue if beggars are rich(and a robin will sing his robin a song)but misers are poor- let's love until noone could quite be(and young is the year,dear)as living as i'm and as you're -let's touch the sky: with a you and a me and an every(who's any who's some)one who's we ~~~~
  • 53.
    edited June 2011

    i don't think I've seen a theory questioning the existence of electric current before.

    Presented by the World Science Database.

    Ivor Catt also has a paper accepted on this topic for the upcoming Natural Philosophy Alliance Proceedings

    http://conf18.worldnpa.org

    Although Catt has long since shown that electric current is a phantasm similar to caloric and phlogiston, this new work is an even clearer method of demonstrating the problem. Even high school students should understand it.

    Join us for this historic video conference at http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=451

    Does Faraday Allow Superposition?

    Date: Saturday, June 4, 2011

    Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time)

    New York: 2011-06-04 10:00 AM

    Rio: 2011-06-04 11:00 AM

    Rome: 2011-06-04 04:00 PM

    Delhi: 2011-06-04 07:30 PM

    Sydney: 1969-12-31 07:00 PM

    Length: 2 hours

    Guest Speaker:

    Ivor Catt

    Electronics Engineer (Retired)

    Interests: Electromagnetism

    Nationality: English

    Books: 11

    Abstract:

    The speed of an electric current has always been a matter for discussion. This went nowhere while it was not realized that the energy delivered from a battery to a lamp traveled at the speed of light. Traditionally, it involved both electricity and traveling field. Linking this with the idea that electrons traveling at the speed of light would have infinite mass, a crisis for electricity which became clearer with the advent the pulses in digital electronics was evaded for the next half century. Ever more glaring flaws in this misalliance in classical electromagnetism were pointed out during the last thirty years and ignored, culminating in the present very clear, simple exegesis, where two fields of opposite polarity travel together, one with current in one direction down each wire, superposed with the other with current in the opposite direction down the same wire.

    Forrest

    --Forrest Bishop

    Bishop Cubes (R)

    www.bishopcubes.com

    Institute of Atomic-Scale Engineering

    www.iase.cc

    Electrodynamics of Theory C

    www.forrestbishop.4t.com

    Comment Source:i don't think I've seen a theory questioning the existence of electric current before. > Presented by the World Science Database. > Ivor Catt also has a paper accepted on this topic for the upcoming Natural Philosophy Alliance Proceedings > [http://conf18.worldnpa.org](http://conf18.worldnpa.org) > Although Catt has long since shown that electric current is a phantasm similar to caloric and phlogiston, this new work is an even clearer method of demonstrating the problem. Even high school students should understand it. > Join us for this historic video conference at > [http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=451](http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=451) > Does Faraday Allow Superposition? > Date: Saturday, June 4, 2011 > Time: 07:00 AM - 09:00 AM (U.S. Pacific time) > New York: 2011-06-04 10:00 AM > Rio: 2011-06-04 11:00 AM > Rome: 2011-06-04 04:00 PM > Delhi: 2011-06-04 07:30 PM > Sydney: 1969-12-31 07:00 PM > Length: 2 hours > Guest Speaker: > Ivor Catt > Electronics Engineer (Retired) > Interests: Electromagnetism > Nationality: English > Books: 11 > Abstract: > The speed of an electric current has always been a matter for discussion. This went nowhere while it was not realized that the energy delivered from a battery to a lamp traveled at the speed of light. Traditionally, it involved both electricity and traveling field. Linking this with the idea that electrons traveling at the speed of light would have infinite mass, a crisis for electricity which became clearer with the advent the pulses in digital electronics was evaded for the next half century. Ever more glaring flaws in this misalliance in classical electromagnetism were pointed out during the last thirty years and ignored, culminating in the present very clear, simple exegesis, where two fields of opposite polarity travel together, one with current in one direction down each wire, superposed with the other with current in the opposite direction down the same wire. > ============= > Forrest > --Forrest Bishop > Bishop Cubes (R) > [www.bishopcubes.com](http://www.bishopcubes.com) > ============ > Institute of Atomic-Scale Engineering > [www.iase.cc](http://www.iase.cc) > ============ > Electrodynamics of Theory C > [www.forrestbishop.4t.com](http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com) > ============
  • 54.

    And yet again the crackpot index works, I particularly like this part from one of the webpages:

    “’Theory C’ is one of the greatest advances in the history of science, and is experiencing the same kind of obstruction as that experienced by Lavoisier's oxidation, getting rid of phlogiston, and the attempt to get rid of caloric.”—Ivor Catt, Sept 8, 2005

    where the 'C' in 'Theory C' is of course an abbreviation for "Catt".

    Comment Source:And yet again the crackpot index works, I particularly like this part from one of the webpages: <blockquote> <p> “’Theory C’ is one of the greatest advances in the history of science, and is experiencing the same kind of obstruction as that experienced by Lavoisier's oxidation, getting rid of phlogiston, and the attempt to get rid of caloric.”—Ivor Catt, Sept 8, 2005 </p> </blockquote> where the 'C' in 'Theory C' is of course an abbreviation for "Catt".
  • 55.

    I'll have to inform Catt when we start developing 'Plan C'.

    Comment Source:I'll have to inform Catt when we start developing 'Plan C'.
  • 56.

    LMAO.

    Comment Source:LMAO.
  • 57.
    edited July 2011

    The so-called 'twin paradox' in special relativity is a constant favorite among authors of potentially revolutionary theories. Perhaps the fact that it's called a 'paradox' is one reason. Another reason may be that some find the existence of many resolutions unsatisfying. My friend Michael Weiss wrote about this here:

    It starts with the old lawyer's joke:

    "Your Honor, I will show first, that my client never borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second, that he returned the vase in perfect condition; and third, that the crack was already present when he borrowed it."

    The following email calls for "a unique solution" to the twin paradox:

    From: christian sutterlin

    Subject: initiative of Natural Philosophy Alliance: Twin Paradox of Langevin

    Dear Sir,

    Let me draw your attention to an interesting initiative of the organization "Natural Philosophy Alliance" in the United States to mark the centenary in 2011 of the twin paradox of Paul Langevin:

    http://twinparadox.net/

    This is a new approach to try to open the debate with the scientific community, the initiative does not provide any solution to this paradox and not criticizing the known solutions, but draws attention to the fact that different solutions contradictory and inconsistent are presented in the established scientific community. This is unacceptable to the scientific perspective for a theory regarded and taught for decades as valid. The established scientific community is asked to present a unique solution to this paradox. This request is legitimate and reasonable appeals to the sense of responsibility for all of us.

    The current list of signatories of the petition (more than 100 authors) vividly demonstrates the international scope of the problem. I would be happy if you bring also your support for this initiative by signing the petition (for simple e-mail or reply form) and making it known in your area of science.

    The Jean de Climont associated engineers of JdeC Ltd association support the initiative of NPA and furthermore suggest a similar initiative should be taken for the Harress and Sagnac experiments and for the Professor Allais statistical results linked to MMI.

    Sincères salutations

    Christian Sütterlin, Jean de Climont associates Ltd

    Comment Source:The so-called 'twin paradox' in special relativity is a constant favorite among authors of potentially revolutionary theories. Perhaps the fact that it's called a 'paradox' is one reason. Another reason may be that some find the existence of many resolutions unsatisfying. My friend Michael Weiss wrote about this here: * Michael Weiss, [Too Many Analyses: a Meta Objection](http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/TwinParadox/twin_vase.html), Physics FAQ. It starts with the old lawyer's joke: > "Your Honor, I will show first, that my client never borrowed the Ming vase from the plaintiff; second, that he returned the vase in perfect condition; and third, that the crack was already present when he borrowed it." The following email calls for "a unique solution" to the twin paradox: > From: christian sutterlin > Subject: initiative of Natural Philosophy Alliance: Twin Paradox of Langevin > Dear Sir, > Let me draw your attention to an interesting initiative of the organization "Natural Philosophy Alliance" in the United States to mark the centenary in 2011 of the twin paradox of Paul Langevin: > [http://twinparadox.net/](http://twinparadox.net/) > This is a new approach to try to open the debate with the scientific community, the initiative does not provide any solution to this paradox and not criticizing the known solutions, but draws attention to the fact that different solutions contradictory and inconsistent are presented in the established scientific community. This is unacceptable to the scientific perspective for a theory regarded and taught for decades as valid. The established scientific community is asked to present a unique solution to this paradox. This request is legitimate and reasonable appeals to the sense of responsibility for all of us. > The current list of signatories of the petition (more than 100 authors) vividly demonstrates the international scope of the problem. I would be happy if you bring also your support for this initiative by signing the petition (for simple e-mail or reply form) and making it known in your area of science. > The Jean de Climont associated engineers of JdeC Ltd association support the initiative of NPA and furthermore suggest a similar initiative should be taken for the Harress and Sagnac experiments and for the Professor Allais statistical results linked to MMI. > Sincères salutations > Christian Sütterlin, Jean de Climont associates Ltd
  • 58.

    The really interesting stuff is on the web pages of the people who signed the petition.

    Comment Source:The really interesting stuff is on the web pages of the people who signed the petition.
  • 59.
    edited July 2011

    Hey, you're right! I went to the webpage of one of the few women who signed the petition (since I find the shortage of revolutionary female physicists to be an interesting phenomenon in its own right). Namely, Jocelyne Lopez.

    It turns out she has published a "monumental compilation of anti-special relativity material by an anonymous German Research Team of dissident scientists". Since 2006 she has sent many "open letters to various personalities of politics, education system and public life (Bundestag deputies, Federal Ministry for Education and Research, Max-Planck-Institute, University Professors and Journalists)". These can be found on her website.

    Thanks to these letters,

    For the first time in the history of criticism of the special theory of relativity, a German Federal Minister for Education and Research (Ms. Annette Schavan) has confirmed that she is aware of the existence of an extensive and suppressed criticism of this theory, and announced (9 May 2007) that this criticism is to be discussed with experts from the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Golm / Albert Einstein Institute (Germany).

    As a consequence of her persistent questioning of the Albert Einstein Institute in Golm/Germany (Kompletter Austausch mit Herrn Dr. Markus Poessel), Ms. Lopez has obtained an official admission by the responsible representatives of the institute, that the supposed length contraction of the special theory of relativity does not represent a physical alteration of the bodies in question. This confirms the objections raised on this issue by many critics of relativity and it points the way to breaking through the wall of silence that has hindered the advance of science for so long.

    (Emphasis mine.)

    Comment Source:Hey, you're right! I went to the webpage of one of the few women who signed the petition (since I find the shortage of revolutionary female physicists to be an interesting phenomenon in its own right). Namely, [Jocelyne Lopez](http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&name=Jocelyne_Lopez). It turns out she has published a "monumental compilation of anti-special relativity material by an anonymous German Research Team of dissident scientists". Since 2006 she has sent many "open letters to various personalities of politics, education system and public life (Bundestag deputies, Federal Ministry for Education and Research, Max-Planck-Institute, University Professors and Journalists)". These can be found on her website. Thanks to these letters, > For the first time in the history of criticism of the special theory of relativity, a German Federal Minister for Education and Research (Ms. Annette Schavan) has confirmed that she is aware of the existence of an extensive and suppressed criticism of this theory, and announced (9 May 2007) that this criticism is to be discussed with experts from the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Golm / Albert Einstein Institute (Germany). > As a consequence of her persistent questioning of the Albert Einstein Institute in Golm/Germany (Kompletter Austausch mit Herrn Dr. Markus Poessel), Ms. Lopez has obtained an **official admission by the responsible representatives of the institute**, that the supposed length contraction of the special theory of relativity does not represent a physical alteration of the bodies in question. This confirms the objections raised on this issue by many critics of relativity and it points the way to breaking through the wall of silence that has hindered the advance of science for so long. (Emphasis mine.)
  • 60.

    Mrs Lopez has written/compiled a 1000+ page book about criticism of special relativity. That must have been quite an amount of work!

    On her blog she herself reveals that she does not understand how the addition of velocities work in special relativity, i.e. how the Lorentz transformations could possibly be used to show that the incoming velocity of light is always the same regardless of your own velocity. c+ v = c has to imply that v = 0, right?

    Then she goes on to say how all relativists don't understand basic mathematics nor have common sense etc.

    She is convinced that it is all a big conspiracy, without explaining the motivation of anyone for participating in this kind of hoax.

    I would really like to understand what went wrong with the educational system in this case.

    Comment Source:Mrs Lopez has written/compiled a 1000+ page book about criticism of special relativity. That must have been quite an amount of work! On her blog she herself reveals that she does not understand how the addition of velocities work in special relativity, i.e. how the Lorentz transformations could possibly be used to show that the incoming velocity of light is always the same regardless of your own velocity. c+ v = c has to imply that v = 0, right? Then she goes on to say how all relativists don't understand basic mathematics nor have common sense etc. She is convinced that it is all a big conspiracy, without explaining the motivation of anyone for participating in this kind of hoax. I would really like to understand what went wrong with the educational system in this case.
  • 61.

    John quoted:

    Ms. Lopez has obtained an official admission by the responsible representatives of the institute, that the supposed length contraction of the special theory of relativity does not represent a physical alteration of the bodies in question.

    Maybe I misunderstand the reason why you put it in boldface, but I think the only problem of this admission could be that Ms Lopez could feel she's been taken seriously. Apart from that, since all laws holding those bodies together are relativistic themselves, they do not alter, seen from its own reference frame, so I don't see why this could not be an official answer.

    This confirms the objections raised on this issue by many critics of relativity and it points the way to breaking through the wall of silence that has hindered the advance of science for so long.

    Of course, this admission doesn't confirm the objections at all.

    Tim wrote:

    I would really like to understand what went wrong with the educational system in this case.

    I don't know if the educational system can be held responsible. Enlightenment cannot be enforced upon someone's mind (as far as enlightenment is stimulated by the educational system - there may of course be improvements possible)

    Comment Source:John quoted: > Ms. Lopez has **obtained an official admission by the responsible representatives of the institute**, that the supposed length contraction of the special theory of relativity does not represent a physical alteration of the bodies in question. Maybe I misunderstand the reason why you put it in boldface, but I think the only problem of this admission could be that Ms Lopez could feel she's been taken seriously. Apart from that, since all laws holding those bodies together are relativistic themselves, they do not alter, seen from its own reference frame, so I don't see why this could not be an official answer. > This confirms the objections raised on this issue by many critics of relativity and it points the way to breaking through the wall of silence that has hindered the advance of science for so long. Of course, this admission doesn't confirm the objections at all. Tim wrote: > I would really like to understand what went wrong with the educational system in this case. I don't know if the educational system can be held responsible. Enlightenment cannot be enforced upon someone's mind (as far as enlightenment is stimulated by the educational system - there may of course be improvements possible)
  • 62.

    I don't know if the educational system can be held responsible.

    What I don't get is an amazing level of achievement on one side combined with a stunning inability to understand the very basics of the whole topic on the other side. Like a PhD candidate who is an analphabet but successful because he is a brilliant rhetorician. Sooner or later someone should be successful to convince him that he will never be truly successful unless he learns to read and to write.

    I'm afraid of these people. What if there are a lot of participants like this in the "open democratic discussion process" going on in climate science? You'd never stand a chance to make any progress.

    Of course, this admission doesn't confirm the objections at all.

    Mrs. Lopez did have an exchange with a physicist who later gave up, due to her official "complaint". He complained that he was quoted on her website out of context. Since it is clear that she does not understand the most basic concepts of relativity, I think she may be unable to correctly cite what she was told, and that it was not even on purpose.

    This is the most dismal aspect of the whole story.

    Comment Source:<blockquote> <p> I don't know if the educational system can be held responsible. </p> </blockquote> What I don't get is an amazing level of achievement on one side combined with a stunning inability to understand the very basics of the whole topic on the other side. Like a PhD candidate who is an analphabet but successful because he is a brilliant rhetorician. Sooner or later someone should be successful to convince him that he will never be truly successful unless he learns to read and to write. I'm afraid of these people. What if there are a lot of participants like this in the "open democratic discussion process" going on in climate science? You'd never stand a chance to make any progress. <blockquote> <p> Of course, this admission doesn't confirm the objections at all. </p> </blockquote> Mrs. Lopez did have an exchange with a physicist who later gave up, due to her official "complaint". He complained that he was quoted on her website out of context. Since it is clear that she does not understand the most basic concepts of relativity, I think she may be unable to correctly cite what she was told, and that it was not even on purpose. This is the most dismal aspect of the whole story.
  • 63.
    nad
    edited July 2011

    Everybody who teaches knows that there are sometimes people who are really not capable of understanding certain things. If you are unmusical you will have a hard time to play a solo in a violin concerto (that by the way shouldn't keep you from liking to do music). It is important that people discover their own limits via a lot of independent and true feedback. There were people in my classes who (unsuccessfully) took examinations at a very late stage and thus discovered only very late that they were not at the right place. They got almost no feedback. Not everybody who is writing bullshit is automatically a crackpot.

    It should be also noted that sometimes "strange and out of place" comments of people may eventually be inspiring or at least funny for physicists, like for example the somewhat edgy performances of abstract artists.

    But of course if there are too many weirdos thrn discussing science can become strenuous.

    Comment Source:Everybody who teaches knows that there are sometimes people who are really not capable of understanding certain things. If you are unmusical you will have a hard time to play a solo in a violin concerto (that by the way shouldn't keep you from liking to do music). It is important that people discover their own limits via a lot of independent and true feedback. There were people in my classes who (unsuccessfully) took examinations at a very late stage and thus discovered only very late that they were not at the right place. They got almost no feedback. Not everybody who is writing bullshit is automatically a crackpot. It should be also noted that sometimes "strange and out of place" comments of people may eventually be inspiring or at least funny for physicists, like for example the somewhat edgy performances of <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/pollock-physics/">abstract artists.</a> But of course if there are too many weirdos thrn discussing science can become strenuous.
  • 64.

    Frederik wrote:

    Maybe I misunderstand the reason why you put it in boldface...

    Because I find it very amusing that someone thinks an "official admission by the responsible representatives of an institute" could be important in settling questions about laws of physics - especially when I think about what probably really happened here.

    Comment Source:Frederik wrote: > Maybe I misunderstand the reason why you put it in boldface... Because I find it very amusing that someone thinks an "official admission by the responsible representatives of an institute" could be important in settling questions about laws of physics - especially when I think about what probably really happened here.
  • 65.

    From: Adib Ben Jebara adib.jebara@topnet.tn

    To: baez@math.ucr.edu

    About logic for elementary particles

    For elementary particles, time is a set of urelements of the negation of the axiom of choice.

    So, time is not totally ordered and there is a lateral time.

    In an experiment, if a particle enters a hole twice that must be that it enters and enters again from the same side in a lateral time.

    The second time is perceived at our level as being after the first time while it is not at the level of the particle.

    In another experiment, the particle enters two holes at the same time, the lateral time appears to be the same time.

    A remark is that the particle does not move in a space straight line.

    An equivalent of the negation of the axiom of choice is that there exist at least one infinite Cartesian product of non empty sets of urelements which is empty. Urelements are undistinguishable non sets.

    http://adibbenjebara.webs.com

    Adib Ben Jebara

    Comment Source:> From: Adib Ben Jebara adib.jebara@topnet.tn > To: baez@math.ucr.edu > About logic for elementary particles > For elementary particles, time is a set of urelements of the negation of the axiom of choice. > So, time is not totally ordered and there is a lateral time. > In an experiment, if a particle enters a hole twice that must be that it enters and enters again from the same side in a lateral time. > The second time is perceived at our level as being after the first time while it is not at the level of the particle. > In another experiment, the particle enters two holes at the same time, the lateral time appears to be the same time. > A remark is that the particle does not move in a space straight line. > An equivalent of the negation of the axiom of choice is that there exist at least one infinite Cartesian product of non empty sets of urelements which is empty. Urelements are undistinguishable non sets. > [http://adibbenjebara.webs.com](http://adibbenjebara.webs.com) Adib Ben Jebara
  • 66.

    The claimed observation of faster-than-light neutrinos can be expected to bring more emails like this:

    Time Travel: Do not believe this.

    Everyone heard that in CERN experimental physicists measured that particles traveled faster then the speed of light. The excuse of theoretical physicists for this, in the past declared impossibility, is that “Time Traveling” might be possible.

    Again Theoretical Physics tries to conceal their incompetence. Do not be deceived this time.

    Read the chapter Incompetent Science Part I.

    You will find all the proof you need to disqualify the Relativity Theory. Only high school physics/math and an open mind are required to realize Theoretical Physics is false for over 100 years.

    Sincerely,

    Carel van der Togt

    No information was provided about the book in which this chapter appears.

    Comment Source:The claimed observation of faster-than-light neutrinos can be expected to bring more emails like this: > Time Travel: Do not believe this. > Everyone heard that in CERN experimental physicists measured that particles traveled faster then the speed of light. The excuse of theoretical physicists for this, in the past declared impossibility, is that “Time Traveling” might be possible. > Again Theoretical Physics tries to conceal their incompetence. Do not be deceived this time. > Read the chapter Incompetent Science Part I. > You will find all the proof you need to disqualify the Relativity Theory. Only high school physics/math and an open mind are required to realize Theoretical Physics is false for over 100 years. > Sincerely, > Carel van der Togt No information was provided about the book in which this chapter appears.
  • 67.
    edited October 2011

    Introduction to Neutrosophic Physics: Unmatter & Unparticle

    http://www.ams.org/meetings/calendar/2011_dec2-4_gallup.html

    and about neutrosophics see: http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/neutrosophy.htm

    Month: December 2011

    Date: December 2--4

    Name: Introduction to Neutrosophic Physics: Unmatter & Unparticle

    Location: The University of New Mexico, Mathematics & Sciences Department, 200 College Rd., Gallup, New Mexico.

    This idea of unparticle was first considered by F. Smarandache in 2004, 2005 and 2006, when he uploaded a paper on CERN web site and he published three papers about what he called 'unmatter', which is a new form of matter formed by matter and antimatter that bind together. In 2006 E. Goldfain introduced the concept of "fractional number of field quanta" and he conjectured that these exotic phases of matter may emerge in the near or deep ultraviolet sector of quantum field theory. H. Georgi proposed the theory of unparticle physics in 2007 that conjectures matter that cannot be explained in terms of particles using the Standard Model of particle physics, because its components are scale invariant. Papers on current trends in High Energy Physics about exotic matter, about connections between unmatter and unparticle, about Neutrosophic Logic as new research in Theoretical Physics, should be sent to the organizer preferably by email.

    Send papers to smarand@unm.edu.

    Comment Source:> **Introduction to Neutrosophic Physics: Unmatter & Unparticle** > [http://www.ams.org/meetings/calendar/2011_dec2-4_gallup.html](http://www.ams.org/meetings/calendar/2011_dec2-4_gallup.html) > and about neutrosophics see: [http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/neutrosophy.htm](http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/neutrosophy.htm) > Month: December 2011 > Date: December 2--4 > Name: Introduction to Neutrosophic Physics: Unmatter & Unparticle > Location: The University of New Mexico, Mathematics & Sciences Department, 200 College Rd., Gallup, New Mexico. > This idea of unparticle was first considered by F. Smarandache in 2004, 2005 and 2006, when he uploaded a paper on CERN web site and he published three papers about what he called 'unmatter', which is a new form of matter formed by matter and antimatter that bind together. In 2006 E. Goldfain introduced the concept of "fractional number of field quanta" and he conjectured that these exotic phases of matter may emerge in the near or deep ultraviolet sector of quantum field theory. H. Georgi proposed the theory of unparticle physics in 2007 that conjectures matter that cannot be explained in terms of particles using the Standard Model of particle physics, because its components are scale invariant. Papers on current trends in High Energy Physics about exotic matter, about connections between unmatter and unparticle, about Neutrosophic Logic as new research in Theoretical Physics, should be sent to the organizer preferably by email. > Send papers to smarand@unm.edu.
  • 68.
    edited October 2011

    This email concerns the environment, for a change.

    From: Alfred Handler

    Subject: Our pathetically primitive species

    Dear Dr. Baez:

    A REAL EFFECTIVE STRATEGY FOR SAVING OUR SPECIES

    Originally written on September 2008, being then 67 years old

    REALLY MAKING LOTS OF MONEY BY SAVING OUR SPECIES

    ============================================================================

    RIGHT NOW A TRULY EFFICIENT SOLUTION TO HUMANITY'S PLIGHT

    RIGHT NOW PREVENTING HUMANITY'S EXTINCTION DUE TO EVENTUAL BIOSPHERE COLLAPSE

    RIGHT NOW THE TERRIBLE CONDITION OF THE BIOSPHERE, MUCH WORSE THAN MOST PEOPLE CAN EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE

    ===================================================

    Dear Kind, Compassionate, Intelligent, Creative Farsighted Earthlings

    I will now proceed to prove to you conclusively that I am not a scammer or a thief but that I am an honorable man with high integrity, because I will not accept even a penny "up front" ahead of time, I will receive my well deserved reward, by contract, after I have completed my job and proven my point, not before, so I cannot steal any money at all from you, that is impossible.

    Also this proposal is the biggest and greatest business opportunity ever in the history of Humanity, really, for real, worth, at the very least hundreds of trillions of dollars, for sure, no kidding, no bullshit, and most important for me, personally, a highly benevolent endeavor, which will save Humanity, if its done with high wisdom and compassion, can you imagine, doing the good and making lots of money doing it, quite extraordinary indeed !!!!

    Naturally, only a Great Genius would be capable to "start the ball rolling" on an enterprise of this extraordinary magnitude, and I must say without any qualms that's Me.

    Enterprise: definition #3 readiness to embark on bold new ventures [syn: enterprisingness, from an excellent "free" dictionary at http://dictionary.die.net

    On the other hand you might say to me,alright buddy, I can see you are a decent guy, you are not going to rob me and that's very nice of you but, suppose your project does not work, then I have lost all the money I invested in it, yes, the money is not in your pocket, you did not steal it from me, but I lost it.

    And I will say to you, Dear Earthling, I am not a saint, I want something out of the realization of his project, I want to be recognized all over the world as the prime mover and generator of it and receive the Nobel Prize and I want money too, I have more than 20 other projects in different fields of endeavor, ahead of my time, like the one I am talking about and I want to have enough money to "throw" a them before I die because nobody else will.

    So, i am not so crazy and stupid to work "my bottom off" for a project I know it will not work, because, ( double negative ), I am not going to get nothing if it does not work, so I have, absolutely, to be quite certain that the probability for it to succeed is very high, at the very least between 80% and the high 90's, I cannot claim to be perfectly sure, 100% because then I would be a liar, specially this being a quite revolutionary undertaking.

    I am well aware that this is an extremely unusual message, but since I am now 67 years old and I could drop dead any minute, consideringt all the old age ailments I, unfortunately have to endure, I must get this project done before I go and I am contacting anybody I can, hoping for a major miracle, because I do need a major miracle, nothing less will do.

    I am an independent inventor, scientist, phycisist, engineer and much more, in many fields of endeavor, who has the same background as Jesus Christ, which is Jewish.

    My terrible problem is that I do have an extremely disruptive technology in mind which is also quite benevolent if used with wisdom and compassion, totally ready to be built, "ready to go" and it is such an enormous "paradigm shift", well ahead of its time for the scientific and engineering community that they are in my way, impeding its manifestation into this world because of thewrong, old fashioned and very entrenched belief systems they are holding on to quite erroneously, and Humanity needs my revolutionary electric generator quite desperately and as soon as possible, in order to survive, it is the only truly effective solution to the planetary catastrophe we have generated ourselves, mainly global warming, climate change, pollution, soil erosion and loss, deforestation, water shortages and food shortages.

    This vital project is ready to go, the design of the device and the process by which it will be manifested into this world is practically done and research and develoment for a period 4 and 7 months will produce the desired effect and this will be done according to The Laws Of Nature for which I have an immense respect and awe.

    The amount of money neededd is less than 1000,000 dollars, a pittance for a large company and again, I will not get even a penny until I prove I am correct and I have great confidence I will be able to do that after working very hard on the problem for 18 years and considering my unique and extraordinary brain.

    I wish that two great men Mr. Nicola Tesla and Mr. Buckminster Fuller would be alive, I am sure they would understand my way of thinking and my project and would approve of it, for sure, because they had true greatness and were visionaries, but very logical and advanced visionaries, and I am like them, in a sense they are my brothers, it would be great to have a cup of tea with them once a week , well, if not in reality I can at least do it in my imagination and dreams while I am sleeping.

    I would appreciate very much if you could offer me kindly guidance and some kind of support in my plight or refer me to someone who can, so I can complete my project before I depart from this realm of existence and if you could help me directly, consistently and concretely, you would have my eternal gratitude and many other benefits as well. As my benefactor you would be always present in my mind as the recipient of my great respecft and loyalty. I am keenly aware that this poor Humanity is tottering at the edge of the abyss of extinction, by its own hand, there is no more time left, something quite revolutionary and earthshaking must begin to be manifested into this world immediately and everything that stands and moves on this planetmust be powered in an entirely different manner within this century, if not, even if in 100 to 200 years from now someone else manages to acquire the knowledge I have laboriously acquired already, it will too late, irreversibility would have set in and Humanity would, in a very horribly painful way, disappear from the the face of this Earth, we have run out of time. What I intend to do is to open an entirely new field of science and technology, to generate a "paradigm shift" of historical proportions.

    The term "paradigm shift" was coined in a 1962 book, "The structure of scientific revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn, a brilliant man, I advise anyone who has not read it to read it and anyone who has read it to reread it, a very excellent and corageous work, defiant of the stodgy establishment, I admire it and respect it highly.

    ... and so on. It's quite long!

    Comment Source:This email concerns the environment, for a change. > From: Alfred Handler > Subject: Our pathetically primitive species > Dear Dr. Baez: > A REAL EFFECTIVE STRATEGY FOR SAVING OUR SPECIES > Originally written on September 2008, being then 67 years old > REALLY MAKING LOTS OF MONEY BY SAVING OUR SPECIES > ============================================================================ > RIGHT NOW A TRULY EFFICIENT SOLUTION TO HUMANITY'S PLIGHT > RIGHT NOW PREVENTING HUMANITY'S EXTINCTION DUE TO EVENTUAL BIOSPHERE COLLAPSE > RIGHT NOW THE TERRIBLE CONDITION OF THE BIOSPHERE, MUCH WORSE THAN MOST PEOPLE CAN EVEN BEGIN TO IMAGINE > =================================================== > Dear Kind, Compassionate, Intelligent, Creative Farsighted Earthlings > I will now proceed to prove to you conclusively that I am not a scammer or a thief but that I am an honorable man with high integrity, because I will not accept even a penny "up front" ahead of time, I will receive my well deserved reward, by contract, after I have completed my job and proven my point, not before, so I cannot steal any money at all from you, that is impossible. > Also this proposal is the biggest and greatest business opportunity ever in the history of Humanity, really, for real, worth, at the very least hundreds of trillions of dollars, for sure, no kidding, no bullshit, and most important for me, personally, a highly benevolent endeavor, which will save Humanity, if its done with high wisdom and compassion, can you imagine, doing the good and making lots of money doing it, quite extraordinary indeed !!!! > Naturally, only a Great Genius would be capable to "start the ball rolling" on an enterprise of this extraordinary magnitude, and I must say without any qualms that's Me. > Enterprise: definition #3 readiness to embark on bold new ventures [syn: enterprisingness, from an excellent "free" dictionary at http://dictionary.die.net > On the other hand you might say to me,alright buddy, I can see you are a decent guy, you are not going to rob me and that's very nice of you but, suppose your project does not work, then I have lost all the money I invested in it, yes, the money is not in your pocket, you did not steal it from me, but I lost it. > And I will say to you, Dear Earthling, I am not a saint, I want something out of the realization of his project, I want to be recognized all over the world as the prime mover and generator of it and receive the Nobel Prize and I want money too, I have more than 20 other projects in different fields of endeavor, ahead of my time, like the one I am talking about and I want to have enough money to "throw" a them before I die because nobody else will. > So, i am not so crazy and stupid to work "my bottom off" for a project I know it will not work, because, ( double negative ), I am not going to get nothing if it does not work, so I have, absolutely, to be quite certain that the probability for it to succeed is very high, at the very least between 80% and the high 90's, I cannot claim to be perfectly sure, 100% because then I would be a liar, specially this being a quite revolutionary undertaking. > I am well aware that this is an extremely unusual message, but since I am now 67 years old and I could drop dead any minute, consideringt all the old age ailments I, unfortunately have to endure, I must get this project done before I go and I am contacting anybody I can, hoping for a major miracle, because I do need a major miracle, nothing less will do. > I am an independent inventor, scientist, phycisist, engineer and much more, in many fields of endeavor, who has the same background as Jesus Christ, which is Jewish. > My terrible problem is that I do have an extremely disruptive technology in mind which is also quite benevolent if used with wisdom and compassion, totally ready to be built, "ready to go" and it is such an enormous "paradigm shift", well ahead of its time for the scientific and engineering community that they are in my way, impeding its manifestation into this world because of thewrong, old fashioned and very entrenched belief systems they are holding on to quite erroneously, and Humanity needs my revolutionary electric generator quite desperately and as soon as possible, in order to survive, it is the only truly effective solution to the planetary catastrophe we have generated ourselves, mainly global warming, climate change, pollution, soil erosion and loss, deforestation, water shortages and food shortages. > This vital project is ready to go, the design of the device and the process by which it will be manifested into this world is practically done and research and develoment for a period 4 and 7 months will produce the desired effect and this will be done according to The Laws Of Nature for which I have an immense respect and awe. > The amount of money neededd is less than 1000,000 dollars, a pittance for a large company and again, I will not get even a penny until I prove I am correct and I have great confidence I will be able to do that after working very hard on the problem for 18 years and considering my unique and extraordinary brain. > I wish that two great men Mr. Nicola Tesla and Mr. Buckminster Fuller would be alive, I am sure they would understand my way of thinking and my project and would approve of it, for sure, because they had true greatness and were visionaries, but very logical and advanced visionaries, and I am like them, in a sense they are my brothers, it would be great to have a cup of tea with them once a week , well, if not in reality I can at least do it in my imagination and dreams while I am sleeping. > I would appreciate very much if you could offer me kindly guidance and some kind of support in my plight or refer me to someone who can, so I can complete my project before I depart from this realm of existence and if you could help me directly, consistently and concretely, you would have my eternal gratitude and many other benefits as well. As my benefactor you would be always present in my mind as the recipient of my great respecft and loyalty. I am keenly aware that this poor Humanity is tottering at the edge of the abyss of extinction, by its own hand, there is no more time left, something quite revolutionary and earthshaking must begin to be manifested into this world immediately and everything that stands and moves on this planetmust be powered in an entirely different manner within this century, if not, even if in 100 to 200 years from now someone else manages to acquire the knowledge I have laboriously acquired already, it will too late, irreversibility would have set in and Humanity would, in a very horribly painful way, disappear from the the face of this Earth, we have run out of time. What I intend to do is to open an entirely new field of science and technology, to generate a "paradigm shift" of historical proportions. > The term "paradigm shift" was coined in a 1962 book, "The structure of scientific revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn, a brilliant man, I advise anyone who has not read it to read it and anyone who has read it to reread it, a very excellent and corageous work, defiant of the stodgy establishment, I admire it and respect it highly. ... and so on. It's quite long!
  • 69.
    edited October 2011

    I think a bit more is worthwhile, though:

    ===============================================================

    Making lots and lots of money and saving the world in the process

    Saving Humanity and the Biosphere and making lots and lots of money DOING IT !!!!!!!!!

    ===============================================================

    Dear Kind, Compassionate, Intelligent, Creative Farsighted Earthlings

    I appreciate very much, in advance, your kind attention, and I respectfully present to you a work for the ages, a work of genius, the key to the salvation of Humanity and the Biosphere, and unfortunately many of us are failing in a completely disastrous and utter self-destructive way to understand that our very lives as a species depend totally on the proper functioning of our very dear and life giving Biosphere.

    The restoration of the Biosphere to an extremely efficient and proper functioning state of existence as soon as possible is Humanity's most urgent, vital, primary reason of being, before anything else, any project at all, this is "THE PROJECT", "PRIORITY ONE" !!!! "PRIORITY ONE" NOTHING COMES BEFORE IT !!!! IF WE DO NOT WAKE UP, WE DIE AS A SPECIES, WE WILL DISAPPEAR OF THE FACE OF THE EARTH !!!!

    THIS IS FATE KNOCKING ON YOUR DOOR, THIS IS THE CALL OF DESTINY, THE DESTINY OF HUMANITY.

    Being my favorite composer, Beethoven, in his wonderful 5th Symphony has his famous first four notes "FATE KNOCKING ON YOUR DOOR" which is the letter "V" in Morse Code and the first letter in the word "VICTORY"

    So, if Humanity receives my gift, the greatest gift ever and uses it with kindness compassion, wisdom, and foresight it will be "VICTORIOUS" over its own foolishness, greed, abuse of power and general blindness, ignorance and insanity, and if not it will be doomed to self-extinction, this is its very, very, last chance period, it is high time to wake up and face reality as it is, however unpleasant.

    And there is the hope that since the design is so inherently benevolent, Humanity won't be able to kill itself with it no matter how it misuses it, if it does misuse it, which is quite probable, that somehow it will save Humanity in spite of our great flaws and imperfection, from ourselves, amen.

    I am an almost 67 years old independent inventor, engineer and scientist, self educated, and so where Mr. Michael Faraday, Mr. Thomas Alva Edison and Mr. Orville Wright and Mr Wilbur Wright and they produced very important advances in science and technology, as well as many other self educated people throughout history.

    I am standing on Mr. Faraday's mighty shoulders, one of the greatest scientists that have ever lived.

    After 18 years of very hard intellectual work I have completed the design of a quite unique and extraordinary device.

    What I intend to do is to build the very first really practical and truly useful electric generator which will produce electricity without using fossil fuels or nuclear power, please read The Book, Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer by a great woman Helen Caldicott M.D, which are very deadly poisons, specially fossil fuels, which have killed millions of people already and continue killing them at an accelerated pace !!!!and that includes the killing of the very people who extract them from within the earth, who process them, sale them, and make money from them, their families and their children, totally insane behavior, without any doubt.

    This magnificent power generator will give birth to an inherently highly benevolent business, yes, a business, because each unit will be rented and there will be charges for preventive maintenance, so money will be made, for sure.

    This extraordinary and unique device will safely power absolutely everything that stands and moves on this Earth, with a ready market of almost seven billion 7,000,000,000 costumers and eventually, it will produce profits in the hundred trillion range 100,000,000,000,000.

    It will be powered by the simultaneously synergistic action of a group of 11 component energies and structures: 1) gravity, 2) inertia, 3) magnetism, 4) zero point energy, 5) the lever principle, 6) electricity, 7) laser light, 8) electronics (digital, analog and hybrid 9) programming, 10) electrical engineering, 11) mechanical engineering.

    It will be built using a synergistic assemblage of well known technologies, which will produce an entirely new effect, never seen before on this Earth.

    It will do, with great ease, what scientists and engineers consider impossible, it will safely generate electric power for public consumption and feed back a little to keep itself running, and repeat this cycle of self-propulsion continuously, without using conventional fuels such as fossil and nuclear.

    THIS IS NOT PERPETUAL MOTION, ALL PROCESSES WHICH WE WISH TO SET IN MOTION WILL REQUIRE AN INPUT OF ENERGY, THIS FACT CANNOT BE CIRCUMVENTED, FOR SURE, QUITE CERTAINLY.

    Yes, I am in total agreement with all scientists and engineers, in order to do work an input of energy is an absolute must, as far as us generating any kind of work or process there is no "free lunch", period.

    On the other hand Scientists and Engineers are totally blind to the fact that the Universe is filled to the brim with an all pervasive totally all permeating matrix of energies, there is no vacuum in the Universe. These energies possess an immense power and subtlety of behavior incomprehensible to our poor, pathetically primitive brains. THEY sustain, run and power the entire Universe and form extremely complex space structures, again beyond our comprehension, and also they are THE ETERNAL MARVELOUS MATRIX from which all matter originates and to which all matter returns eventually THE ETERNAL EBB-FLOW. This Matrix is governed by very subtle and quite consistent laws, obeying a highly developed priciple of absolute causality of SUCH MULTIDIMENSIONAL, PROFOUNDLY NON-LINEAR, HIGHLY ANISOTROPIC INTELLIGENCE that, again, our poor pathetically primitive brains are totally helpless to fathom.

    The Energies are forever young, unlike us, they never ever tire, or wear out, or become depleted, their power never ever wanes, they will provide the energy needed to sustain and power my machine, and if there is an ALMIGHTY GOD. and I am still an agnostic, then THEY ARE THE GREAT GLORY OF GOD !!!!!!!!!

    Comment Source:I think a bit more is worthwhile, though: > =============================================================== > Making lots and lots of money and saving the world in the process > Saving Humanity and the Biosphere and making lots and lots of money DOING IT !!!!!!!!! > =============================================================== > Dear Kind, Compassionate, Intelligent, Creative Farsighted Earthlings > I appreciate very much, in advance, your kind attention, and I respectfully present to you a work for the ages, a work of genius, the key to the salvation of Humanity and the Biosphere, and unfortunately many of us are failing in a completely disastrous and utter self-destructive way to understand that our very lives as a species depend totally on the proper functioning of our very dear and life giving Biosphere. > The restoration of the Biosphere to an extremely efficient and proper functioning state of existence as soon as possible is Humanity's most urgent, vital, primary reason of being, before anything else, any project at all, this is "THE PROJECT", "PRIORITY ONE" !!!! "PRIORITY ONE" NOTHING COMES BEFORE IT !!!! IF WE DO NOT WAKE UP, WE DIE AS A SPECIES, WE WILL DISAPPEAR OF THE FACE OF THE EARTH !!!! > THIS IS FATE KNOCKING ON YOUR DOOR, THIS IS THE CALL OF DESTINY, THE DESTINY OF HUMANITY. > Being my favorite composer, Beethoven, in his wonderful 5th Symphony has his famous first four notes "FATE KNOCKING ON YOUR DOOR" which is the letter "V" in Morse Code and the first letter in the word "VICTORY" > So, if Humanity receives my gift, the greatest gift ever and uses it with kindness compassion, wisdom, and foresight it will be "VICTORIOUS" over its own foolishness, greed, abuse of power and general blindness, ignorance and insanity, and if not it will be doomed to self-extinction, this is its very, very, last chance period, it is high time to wake up and face reality as it is, however unpleasant. > And there is the hope that since the design is so inherently benevolent, Humanity won't be able to kill itself with it no matter how it misuses it, if it does misuse it, which is quite probable, that somehow it will save Humanity in spite of our great flaws and imperfection, from ourselves, amen. > I am an almost 67 years old independent inventor, engineer and scientist, self educated, and so where Mr. Michael Faraday, Mr. Thomas Alva Edison and Mr. Orville Wright and Mr Wilbur Wright and they produced very important advances in science and technology, as well as many other self educated people throughout history. > I am standing on Mr. Faraday's mighty shoulders, one of the greatest scientists that have ever lived. > After 18 years of very hard intellectual work I have completed the design of a quite unique and extraordinary device. > What I intend to do is to build the very first really practical and truly useful electric generator which will produce electricity without using fossil fuels or nuclear power, please read The Book, Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer by a great woman Helen Caldicott M.D, which are very deadly poisons, specially fossil fuels, which have killed millions of people already and continue killing them at an accelerated pace !!!!and that includes the killing of the very people who extract them from within the earth, who process them, sale them, and make money from them, their families and their children, totally insane behavior, without any doubt. > This magnificent power generator will give birth to an inherently highly benevolent business, yes, a business, because each unit will be rented and there will be charges for preventive maintenance, so money will be made, for sure. > This extraordinary and unique device will safely power absolutely everything that stands and moves on this Earth, with a ready market of almost seven billion 7,000,000,000 costumers and eventually, it will produce profits in the hundred trillion range 100,000,000,000,000. > It will be powered by the simultaneously synergistic action of a group of 11 component energies and structures: 1) gravity, 2) inertia, 3) magnetism, 4) zero point energy, 5) the lever principle, 6) electricity, 7) laser light, 8) electronics (digital, analog and hybrid 9) programming, 10) electrical engineering, 11) mechanical engineering. > It will be built using a synergistic assemblage of well known technologies, which will produce an entirely new effect, never seen before on this Earth. > It will do, with great ease, what scientists and engineers consider impossible, it will safely generate electric power for public consumption and feed back a little to keep itself running, and repeat this cycle of self-propulsion continuously, without using conventional fuels such as fossil and nuclear. > THIS IS NOT PERPETUAL MOTION, ALL PROCESSES WHICH WE WISH TO SET IN MOTION WILL REQUIRE AN INPUT OF ENERGY, THIS FACT CANNOT BE CIRCUMVENTED, FOR SURE, QUITE CERTAINLY. > Yes, I am in total agreement with all scientists and engineers, in order to do work an input of energy is an absolute must, as far as us generating any kind of work or process there is no "free lunch", period. > On the other hand Scientists and Engineers are totally blind to the fact that the Universe is filled to the brim with an all pervasive totally all permeating matrix of energies, there is no vacuum in the Universe. These energies possess an immense power and subtlety of behavior incomprehensible to our poor, pathetically primitive brains. THEY sustain, run and power the entire Universe and form extremely complex space structures, again beyond our comprehension, and also they are THE ETERNAL MARVELOUS MATRIX from which all matter originates and to which all matter returns eventually THE ETERNAL EBB-FLOW. This Matrix is governed by very subtle and quite consistent laws, obeying a highly developed priciple of absolute causality of SUCH MULTIDIMENSIONAL, PROFOUNDLY NON-LINEAR, HIGHLY ANISOTROPIC INTELLIGENCE that, again, our poor pathetically primitive brains are totally helpless to fathom. > The Energies are forever young, unlike us, they never ever tire, or wear out, or become depleted, their power never ever wanes, they will provide the energy needed to sustain and power my machine, and if there is an ALMIGHTY GOD. and I am still an agnostic, then THEY ARE THE GREAT GLORY OF GOD !!!!!!!!!
  • 70.

    But does he explain how his invention works?

    The last part seems to imply that it works on brain power assessing the matrix of eternal flow.

    BTW, do you know the "Song of the Insufficiency of Human Struggling" from the Threepenny Opera?

    Comment Source:But does he explain how his invention works? The last part seems to imply that it works on brain power assessing the matrix of eternal flow. BTW, do you know the "Song of the Insufficiency of Human Struggling" from the Threepenny Opera?
  • 71.

    I don't remember that song, though I've heard the Threepenny Opera.

    Alfred Handler doesn't explain his device in detail (after all, this is a sales pitch); the closest he comes to explaining it is this:

    Yes, I know about "renewables" such as geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, biomass, biofuel, hydroelectric and I also know that they all have drawbacks which my machine does not have and could be distributed much faster all over the Earth, I do not claim that it is perfect, it will generate a very small amount of heat, which can be used to warm your home when the weather is cold, or warm water, and when it is warm it will power a "thermocouple" A temperature-sensing element that converts thermal energy directly into electrical energy to give us air conditioning, a very efficient system indeed !!!!

    Comment Source:I don't remember that song, though I've heard the Threepenny Opera. Alfred Handler doesn't explain his device in detail (after all, this is a sales pitch); the closest he comes to explaining it is this: > Yes, I know about "renewables" such as geothermal, solar, wind, tidal, biomass, biofuel, hydroelectric and I also know that they all have drawbacks which my machine does not have and could be distributed much faster all over the Earth, I do not claim that it is perfect, it will generate a very small amount of heat, which can be used to warm your home when the weather is cold, or warm water, and when it is warm it will power a "thermocouple" A temperature-sensing element that converts thermal energy directly into electrical energy to give us air conditioning, a very efficient system indeed !!!!
  • 72.
    edited October 2011

    Darn, I cannot find a decent translation. But "Useless Song" isn't a good translation.

    Here is the part I have in mind:

    Yeah, make a big plan

    be a smartass

    and make another one,

    both won't work,

    (chorus:)

    because for this life, man isn't smart enough, but it's nice of him to try anyway

    Your livelihood is provided by your brains

    your brains aren't enough

    try it

    your brains feed a mouse at the utmost

    (chorus...)

    (end)

    I allways remember this song when I hear the term "intellectual".

    Definition: An intellectual is a human living from what his brains produce.

    Theorem: All intellectuals are poor.

    Comment Source:Darn, I cannot find a decent translation. But "Useless Song" isn't a good translation. Here is the part I have in mind: Yeah, make a big plan be a smartass and make another one, both won't work, (chorus:) because for this life, man isn't smart enough, but it's nice of him to try anyway Your livelihood is provided by your brains your brains aren't enough try it your brains feed a mouse at the utmost (chorus...) (end) I allways remember this song when I hear the term "intellectual". Definition: An intellectual is a human living from what his brains produce. Theorem: All intellectuals are poor.
  • 73.

    Well John, I think you need to revise the Crackpot index to include some equation relating to the number of exclamation points in succession.

    I'd also include points for Tesla and Bucky Fuller reference. ;-)

    I'm curious, why do you spend as much time as you do reading these things? Amusement? Perhaps someone, someday might actually have some interesting ideas that trigger others?

    Comment Source:Well John, I think you need to revise the Crackpot index to include some equation relating to the number of exclamation points in succession. I'd also include points for Tesla and Bucky Fuller reference. ;-) I'm curious, why do you spend as much time as you do reading these things? Amusement? Perhaps someone, someday might actually have some interesting ideas that trigger others?
  • 74.
    edited December 2011

    Curtis wrote:

    I'm curious, why do you spend as much time as you do reading these things?

    First of all, I get them in my email. When I get a few from the same guy (it's always a male) I create a filter that has their emails automatically put in a special folder. But I keep getting them from more people.

    Amusement?

    Sort of... I guess I became interested when the newsgroup sci.physics became infested with crackpots, back when the internet first became widely known. All of a sudden it was clear how many people have alternative theories of physics! And then I became a moderator of sci.physics.research, where my job was to distinguish between people that were interesting to listen to and people who were too far-out. And then, as I became better-known, I started getting tons of email from people with far-out theories.

    Perhaps someone, someday might actually have some interesting ideas that trigger others?

    No, I don't think these emails are a good way to trigger interesting ideas. Much better to go on a walk in the woods!

    Mainly I'm interested in why fundamental issues attract people like moths to a candle-flame, and how they respond to this impulse. We used to only have myths; now there's science, but the exact borderline between science and myth is very hard, essentially impossible, to define. I know that my own interest in fundamental physics was driven by powerful psychological forces beyond my control - the stuff that makes people invent myths. But the same forces that make people creative can also make them crazy. It's that tricky borderline that interests me. I'm interested in geniuses but also in nuts. I get more email from the latter.

    Comment Source:Curtis wrote: > I'm curious, why do you spend as much time as you do reading these things? First of all, I get them in my email. When I get a few from the same guy (it's always a male) I create a filter that has their emails automatically put in a special folder. But I keep getting them from more people. > Amusement? Sort of... I guess I became interested when the newsgroup sci.physics became infested with crackpots, back when the internet first became widely known. All of a sudden it was clear how many people have alternative theories of physics! And then I became a moderator of sci.physics.research, where my _job_ was to distinguish between people that were interesting to listen to and people who were too far-out. And then, as I became better-known, I started getting tons of email from people with far-out theories. > Perhaps someone, someday might actually have some interesting ideas that trigger others? No, I don't think these emails are a good way to trigger interesting ideas. Much better to go on a walk in the woods! Mainly I'm interested in why fundamental issues attract people like moths to a candle-flame, and how they respond to this impulse. We used to only have myths; now there's science, but the exact borderline between science and myth is very hard, essentially impossible, to define. I know that my own interest in fundamental physics was driven by powerful psychological forces beyond my control - the stuff that makes people invent myths. But the same forces that make people creative can also make them crazy. It's that tricky borderline that interests me. I'm interested in geniuses but also in nuts. I get more email from the latter.
  • 75.
    edited December 2011

    Dear John Baez,

    Yes, it's absolutely true. You can really travel in time. (But for now, only if you read our book and join our newsgroup).

    And there's more!

    An understanding of time relates to an understanding of consciousness, and of free will, and of the difficulties in creating intelligent machines and much, much more!

    Let me explain.

    A book entitled "Time Travel in Theory and Practice" has recently been completed and will be on sale at leading outlets worldwide. Some of the work in this book was available on the internet for many years in a blog and a website, and on posters, CDs, published work and handouts at various international scientific venues of repute. But now we have reached a point where substantial advances over a period of time may improve our understanding of physics - and the world as it is!

    And My Problem Is Your Opportunity

    You are an internationally known expert of fame and prestige. So rather than take all the credit eventually for this important work I would like to enlist the help of others, including yourself.

    As usual, just spend as much or as little time on this project as you wish. But we now have an open discussion forum, ideas as to more experiments and the desire to see the book on this work obtain favorable reviews and public attention within the scientific community.

    Here's What You Should Do Now

    Download our excellent book, free to you in glorious PDF. Download this fine book at http://www.ifsgoa.com/docs Brief details and facts are on our own website at http://www.ifsgoa.com Book reviews and favorable scientific community help welcome.

    If you are still undecided, join our group ("Time Travel in Theory and Practice ") by simply applying at uvscience@gmail.com to get into further discussions and progress, and we will send you an email invitation. And you can always simply write to me at uvscience@gmail.com

    One way that it has been envisaged that we may extend and elaborate the results of this research is to try to use methods of open or partial open notebook science, or electronic lab books as eCAT does. These methods have already been quite widely used in genetics research, biological research and other applications, particularly in chemistry. One wonders whether progress in quantum computing might not have gone further already if there had been more such collaboration there. At any rate the present work is highly interdisciplinary so the development of new methods to further this work might in itself be an advance. Back in the days of PDP8 computers I actually put forward, whilst establishing the "The International Journal of Theoretical Physics", the idea of the ezine for it but in those days existing publishers did not see very far in advance.

    You can just reply with a blank email to this email if you would like to join our group and we will happily reply. In any case, we look forward to hearing from you in our group, so please join it now anyway and read the book too. Of course there is no financial obligation or comitment, and that is the case for most egroups.

    Otherwise, you'll be giving up the chance to be in the van of progress, and to join - NOW! - with scientists of the new 21st Century variety. We are not denying existing discoveries, but improving on them in new ways. I really hope that you are one of the lucky people to join us this time. Last time, many Nobel prizewinners joined with us and then quantum computing was invented through Richard Feynman's work in a journal that I founded, and edited for many years..... So we have a track record! AND YOU COULD HARDLY ASK FOR A BETTER ONE !!

    You will doubtless be aware that quantum computing was a relatively simple concept, once understood. But even Richard Feynman found it hard to convince people of quantum computing, even though I had provided a journal vehicle expressly to allow such publications. And even now, subsequent to this publication, full application of his ideas has still not been made. Now we have the same problem with time travel, and it is up to scientific workers to put this matter right.

    Now, it is time travel !!! So join the best, join the Institute for Fundamental Studies and take advantage of this golden opportunity and perhaps even meet the research scientist Dr. John Yates in his Institute in Goa, India.

    Sincerely,

    Dr. John Yates, M.Sc., Ph.D.,

    President & Director, Institute for Fundamental Studies, Goa, Mumbai & London

    BOOK FREE DOWNLOAD: http://www.ifsgoa.com/docs .

    BRIEF DETAILS: http://www.ifsgoa.com/new

    WEBSITE: http://www.ifsgoa.com

    EMAIL: uvscience@gmail.com

    Available in 6-8 weeks from all good retailers

    "Time Travel in Theory and Practice", hard cover version, ISBN 978-0-9570434-0-4

    "Time Travel in Theory and Practice", soft cover version, ISBN 978-0-9570434-1-1

    P.S. Leading libraries throughout the world will receive free physical copies of the book from our foundation. Unlike commercial publishers, we make no financial profit ! Selected individuals will obtain pdf downloads, free for the moment, and in that way copies should spread. And of course anyone can purchase the physical book at Amazon, Barnes and Noble etc.

    P.P.S. We are naturally deeply pleased of any book reviews which are made, placed with us, or placed with Amazon, or with another outlet.

    P.P.P.S. Hurry! This letter is being sent to other experts and the sooner we can get useful assistance and co-operation, the sooner we can make positive achievements.

    Comment Source:> Dear John Baez, > Yes, it's absolutely true. You can really travel in time. (But for now, only if you read our book and join our newsgroup). > _And there's more!_ > An understanding of time relates to an understanding of consciousness, and of free will, and of the difficulties in creating intelligent machines and much, much more! > Let me explain. > A book entitled "Time Travel in Theory and Practice" has recently been completed and will be on sale at leading outlets worldwide. Some of the work in this book was available on the internet for many years in a blog and a website, and on posters, CDs, published work and handouts at various international scientific venues of repute. But now we have reached a point where substantial advances over a period of time may improve our understanding of physics - and the world as it is! > _And My Problem Is Your Opportunity_ > You are an internationally known expert of fame and prestige. So rather than take all the credit eventually for this important work I would like to enlist the help of others, including yourself. > As usual, just spend as much or as little time on this project as you wish. But we now have an open discussion forum, ideas as to more experiments and the desire to see the book on this work obtain favorable reviews and public attention within the scientific community. > _Here's What You Should Do Now_ > Download our excellent book, free to you in glorious PDF. Download this fine book at [http://www.ifsgoa.com/docs](http://www.ifsgoa.com/docs) Brief details and facts are on our own website at [http://www.ifsgoa.com]( http://www.ifsgoa.com) Book reviews and favorable scientific community help welcome. > If you are still undecided, join our group ("Time Travel in Theory and Practice ") by simply applying at uvscience@gmail.com to get into further discussions and progress, and we will send you an email invitation. And you can always simply write to me at uvscience@gmail.com > One way that it has been envisaged that we may extend and elaborate the results of this research is to try to use methods of open or partial open notebook science, or electronic lab books as eCAT does. These methods have already been quite widely used in genetics research, biological research and other applications, particularly in chemistry. One wonders whether progress in quantum computing might not have gone further already if there had been more such collaboration there. At any rate the present work is highly interdisciplinary so the development of new methods to further this work might in itself be an advance. Back in the days of PDP8 computers I actually put forward, whilst establishing the "The International Journal of Theoretical Physics", the idea of the ezine for it but in those days existing publishers did not see very far in advance. > You can just reply with a blank email to this email if you would like to join our group and we will happily reply. In any case, we look forward to hearing from you in our group, so please join it now anyway and read the book too. Of course there is no financial obligation or comitment, and that is the case for most egroups. > Otherwise, you'll be giving up the chance to be in the van of progress, and to join - NOW! - with scientists of the new 21st Century variety. We are not denying existing discoveries, but improving on them in new ways. I really hope that you are one of the lucky people to join us this time. Last time, many Nobel prizewinners joined with us and then quantum computing was invented through Richard Feynman's work in a journal that I founded, and edited for many years..... So we have a track record! AND YOU COULD HARDLY ASK FOR A BETTER ONE !! > You will doubtless be aware that quantum computing was a relatively simple concept, once understood. But even Richard Feynman found it hard to convince people of quantum computing, even though I had provided a journal vehicle expressly to allow such publications. And even now, subsequent to this publication, full application of his ideas has still not been made. Now we have the same problem with time travel, and it is up to scientific workers to put this matter right. > Now, it is time travel !!! So join the best, join the Institute for Fundamental Studies and take advantage of this golden opportunity and perhaps even meet the research scientist Dr. John Yates in his Institute in Goa, India. > Sincerely, > Dr. John Yates, M.Sc., Ph.D., > President & Director, Institute for Fundamental Studies, Goa, Mumbai & London > BOOK FREE DOWNLOAD: http://www.ifsgoa.com/docs . > BRIEF DETAILS: http://www.ifsgoa.com/new > WEBSITE: http://www.ifsgoa.com >EMAIL: uvscience@gmail.com > Available in 6-8 weeks from all good retailers > "Time Travel in Theory and Practice", hard cover version, ISBN 978-0-9570434-0-4 > "Time Travel in Theory and Practice", soft cover version, ISBN 978-0-9570434-1-1 > P.S. Leading libraries throughout the world will receive free physical copies of the book from our foundation. Unlike commercial publishers, we make no financial profit ! Selected individuals will obtain pdf downloads, free for the moment, and in that way copies should spread. And of course anyone can purchase the physical book at Amazon, Barnes and Noble etc. > P.P.S. We are naturally deeply pleased of any book reviews which are made, placed with us, or placed with Amazon, or with another outlet. > P.P.P.S. Hurry! This letter is being sent to other experts and the sooner we can get useful assistance and co-operation, the sooner we can make positive achievements.
  • 76.

    John, have you looked much into the correlation of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia among true geniuses? Carl Jung comes to mind, as well as the obvious John Nash.

    I spent several months studying the neuroscience of intuition at a high level in research for my last book. In a battle of bottom-up neural-net-type intuitive thinking versus top-down command-and-control thinking, sometimes the intuitive right-brain wins out over logic and we just "know" something without knowing why (or at least we think we do). It's this natural and beneficial action of the right-brain that serves as the basis for myth creation. Some people run their lives on intuition (the Fs in Jungian/Myers-Briggs analysis) while others on left-brain logic (the Ts).

    Creativity comes from letting "crazy" ideas flow a bit, or loosening up the assumptions of what we know to be true so that things can take a slightly different arrangement. Doing this well requires the ability to keep a very complex picture of the assumptions underlying any given set of present knowledge for a given domain. You can only rearrange the theoretical underpinnings of science, not the experimental observations, as you know. Geniuses seem to be able to surf the edge of the crazy ideas to find the new ones that haven't yet been thought, and they are able to rearrange the theoretical underpinnings of observation.

    Two of my favorite intuition quotes:

    “Intuition will tell the thinking mind where to look next.” - Jonas Salk

    and the classic:

    “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” - Albert Einstein

    The difficult part, and the part that leads to crackpotdom when not done, IMHO, is recognizing when particular ideas are not going to be accepted or that they differ from the mainstream and why. A man or woman who has crazy ideas and knows they are crazy isn't considered crazy.

    Whereas, you seem to get a lot of letters from people with crazy ideas who think they'll be readily accepted.

    That makes them truly crazy.

    Comment Source:John, have you looked much into the correlation of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia among true geniuses? Carl Jung comes to mind, as well as the obvious John Nash. I spent several months studying the neuroscience of intuition at a high level in research for my last book. In a battle of bottom-up neural-net-type intuitive thinking versus top-down command-and-control thinking, sometimes the intuitive right-brain wins out over logic and we just "know" something without knowing why (or at least we think we do). It's this natural and beneficial action of the right-brain that serves as the basis for myth creation. Some people run their lives on intuition (the Fs in Jungian/Myers-Briggs analysis) while others on left-brain logic (the Ts). Creativity comes from letting "crazy" ideas flow a bit, or loosening up the assumptions of what we know to be true so that things can take a slightly different arrangement. Doing this well requires the ability to keep a very complex picture of the assumptions underlying any given set of present knowledge for a given domain. You can only rearrange the theoretical underpinnings of science, not the experimental observations, as you know. Geniuses seem to be able to surf the edge of the crazy ideas to find the new ones that haven't yet been thought, and they are able to rearrange the theoretical underpinnings of observation. Two of my favorite intuition quotes: >“Intuition will tell the thinking mind where to look next.” - Jonas Salk and the classic: >“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.” - Albert Einstein The difficult part, and the part that leads to crackpotdom when not done, IMHO, is recognizing when particular ideas are not going to be accepted or that they differ from the mainstream and why. A man or woman who has crazy ideas and knows they are crazy isn't considered crazy. Whereas, you seem to get a lot of letters from people with crazy ideas who think they'll be readily accepted. That makes them truly crazy.
  • 77.
    edited December 2011

    Curtis wrote:

    John, have you looked much into the correlation of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia among true geniuses? Carl Jung comes to mind, as well as the obvious John Nash.

    Not too much, but I've read biographies of both these guys.

    I used to be quite interested in Jung, back when I was more unhappy and (thus) interested in psychology. It's very hard to know what to make of him. Studying psychology by letting yourself become half-crazy is a very tricky approach... and I'm not just talking about the personal dangers. On the one hand he saw a lot of things that more strait-laced people would never notice, but on the other hand it's hard to tell how much of what he saw is universal and how much is idiosyncratic to him: i.e., his own personal mythology.

    Nash mainly seemed like a class-A jerk to me - at least before he went nuts.

    Creativity comes from letting "crazy" ideas flow a bit, or loosening up the assumptions of what we know to be true so that things can take a slightly different arrangement.

    Yes, I try to do that a lot, and I spend a lot of time thinking about how to do it well. This involves both being a bit crazy and being the complete opposite of crazy - preferably almost simultaneously. Most crazy ideas are junk, so randomly sifting through crazy ideas is very inefficient. In math and physics, at least, it's much better to try to build up exquisite taste for what counts as an interesting important pattern, and then start looking for lots of these patterns, and keeping a kind of mental file of them, and taking each new thing you learn and seeing if it offers new clues. The world becomes a jigsaw puzzle and each thing you learn is like being handed a new piece. Then, only talk about your ideas when they pass a certain threshhold of quality, so you don't annoy people with idiotic guesses.

    It works best if you learn about lots of different subjects, so you can spot patterns that nobody has noticed because they relate things that seem drastically different (but turn out not to be). It's much easier to make progress between existing specialities than within them. That's where there's the most room for growth: in the spaces between things people are already interested in.

    Since I spend so much time playing these mental games, I was very flattered when Scott Aaronson wrote:

    You know, every time I read anything technical you’ve written, my head spins from notions that look at first glance like “compile-time errors”. A finite field with one element. Programs that never halt as “singularities to be patched up.” The log of a program’s runtime as analogous to the energy of a gas container. Then I wish my brain would expand enough that these notions would compile.

    I'm showing off now, but that's the best compliment I've gotten in ages.

    Comment Source:Curtis wrote: > John, have you looked much into the correlation of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia among true geniuses? Carl Jung comes to mind, as well as the obvious John Nash. Not too much, but I've read biographies of both these guys. I used to be quite interested in Jung, back when I was more unhappy and (thus) interested in psychology. It's very hard to know what to make of him. Studying psychology by letting yourself become half-crazy is a very tricky approach... and I'm not just talking about the personal dangers. On the one hand he saw a lot of things that more strait-laced people would never notice, but on the other hand it's hard to tell how much of what he saw is universal and how much is idiosyncratic to him: i.e., his own _personal_ mythology. Nash mainly seemed like a class-A jerk to me - at least before he went nuts. > Creativity comes from letting "crazy" ideas flow a bit, or loosening up the assumptions of what we know to be true so that things can take a slightly different arrangement. Yes, I try to do that a lot, and I spend a lot of time thinking about how to do it well. This involves both being a bit crazy _and_ being the complete opposite of crazy - preferably almost simultaneously. Most crazy ideas are junk, so randomly sifting through crazy ideas is very inefficient. In math and physics, at least, it's much better to try to build up exquisite taste for what counts as an interesting important pattern, and then start looking for lots of these patterns, and keeping a kind of mental file of them, and taking each new thing you learn and seeing if it offers new clues. The world becomes a jigsaw puzzle and each thing you learn is like being handed a new piece. Then, only talk about your ideas when they pass a certain threshhold of quality, so you don't annoy people with idiotic guesses. It works best if you learn about lots of different subjects, so you can spot patterns that nobody has noticed because they relate things that seem drastically different (but turn out not to be). It's much easier to make progress _between_ existing specialities than _within_ them. That's where there's the most room for growth: in the spaces _between_ things people are already interested in. Since I spend so much time playing these mental games, I was very flattered when [Scott Aaronson wrote](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=791#comment-29244): > You know, every time I read anything technical you’ve written, my head spins from notions that look at first glance like “compile-time errors”. A finite field with one element. Programs that never halt as “singularities to be patched up.” The log of a program’s runtime as analogous to the energy of a gas container. Then I wish my brain would expand enough that these notions would compile. I'm showing off now, but that's the best compliment I've gotten in ages.
  • 78.

    John wrote:

    Studying psychology by letting yourself become half-crazy is a very tricky approach... and I'm not just talking about the personal dangers. On the one hand he saw a lot of things that more strait-laced people would never notice, but on the other hand it's hard to tell how much of what he saw is universal and how much is idiosyncratic to him: i.e., his own personal mythology.

    There is much truth in this. I've found that I am very good, for instance, at knowing the implications of very complex social phenomena at the high level, to the point where I can predict the future in a: "A will lead to B which will lead to C in the context of D and eventually E will happen," sense. So I am very good at seeing the implications and the ripples of causation in a complex system. I have learned, however, that I cannot predict the timing very accurately. You could easily go crazy if you apply some metaphysical meaning to what is merely insight and bottom-up right-brain intuition.

    Creativity comes from letting "crazy" ideas flow a bit, or loosening up the assumptions of what we know to be true so that things can take a slightly different arrangement.

    Yes, I try to do that a lot, and I spend a lot of time thinking about how to do it well. This involves both being a bit crazy and being the complete opposite of crazy - preferably almost simultaneously. Most crazy ideas are junk, so randomly sifting through crazy ideas is very inefficient. In math and physics, at least, it's much better to try to build up exquisite taste for what counts as an interesting important pattern, and then start looking for lots of these patterns, and keeping a kind of mental file of them, and taking each new thing you learn and seeing if it offers new clues. The world becomes a jigsaw puzzle and each thing you learn is like being handed a new piece. Then, only talk about your ideas when they pass a certain threshhold of quality, so you don't annoy people with idiotic guesses.

    That's very interesting that you say this. In my own amateur physics and math, I'm coming from a very different place than most. So I find the jigsaw puzzle aspect of learning to be most fascinating as I think I'm building a different puzzle than most.

    I dropped out of college when I was 19 to trade commodities. Not because I disliked school, but because I was bored with the pace of it. I applied a year early to Harvard, M.I.T. and Worcester Polytechnic Institute which were both near where I lived. Neither of my parents went to college so I filled out the applications myself a few days before the deadline and knew nothing about the process. I didn't get into M.I.T. or Harvard, but I did get into W.P.I. so I went to college early there. But after a year and a half, I found I was learning much more at work after class where I was writing algorithmic commodity trading systems on an Apple II.

    The upshot is that I stopped my math and science education at a very weird spot given my aptitude and interest level. For example, I was on the math team and we won the MA state competition when I was a freshman in high school, I was always taking as many classes in math, physics, chemistry, etc. possible, yet the last class I took in college was differential equations, so I would have been on a very different trajectory had I stayed in school.

    I started making up for lost time about three years ago, and most especially in physics because I was interested in trying to figure out places where I might be able to contribution, and fusion energy seemed like one area that had reached an impasse.

    So I was coming into the field as a complete no-nothing by comparison to even most current undergrads, yet as someone who was very confident in my potential to learn the subject matter and as one who has been successful doing most anything I wanted up 'til that point. So I was not a typical student learning from experts, but a successful adult looking to branch into something more useful to society. Much, as I suspect you were when you decided to branch out into "saving the world."

    As you might imagine, I have had to filter through a lot of woo and BS on the Internet to figure out what is accepted science. The most accessible forums tend to be populated with a combination of know-it-alls who aren't as smart as they think and those who believe quantum theory explains God and unicorns.

    I've started to notice patterns too. Some interesting ones. Whether they are the same ones that experts see early in grad school? I don't know. Or if I'm seeing mirages and illusions, too early to tell. Or some new things? Again, too early to tell. And definitely not past the threshold of quality where I'd not annoy people. ;-)

    Comment Source:John wrote: >Studying psychology by letting yourself become half-crazy is a very tricky approach... and I'm not just talking about the personal dangers. On the one hand he saw a lot of things that more strait-laced people would never notice, but on the other hand it's hard to tell how much of what he saw is universal and how much is idiosyncratic to him: i.e., his own _personal_ mythology. There is much truth in this. I've found that I am very good, for instance, at knowing the implications of very complex social phenomena at the high level, to the point where I can predict the future in a: "A will lead to B which will lead to C in the context of D and eventually E will happen," sense. So I am very good at seeing the implications and the ripples of causation in a complex system. I have learned, however, that I cannot predict the timing very accurately. You could easily go crazy if you apply some metaphysical meaning to what is merely insight and bottom-up right-brain intuition. >> Creativity comes from letting "crazy" ideas flow a bit, or loosening up the assumptions of what we know to be true so that things can take a slightly different arrangement. >Yes, I try to do that a lot, and I spend a lot of time thinking about how to do it well. This involves both being a bit crazy _and_ being the complete opposite of crazy - preferably almost simultaneously. Most crazy ideas are junk, so randomly sifting through crazy ideas is very inefficient. In math and physics, at least, it's much better to try to build up exquisite taste for what counts as an interesting important pattern, and then start looking for lots of these patterns, and keeping a kind of mental file of them, and taking each new thing you learn and seeing if it offers new clues. The world becomes a jigsaw puzzle and each thing you learn is like being handed a new piece. Then, only talk about your ideas when they pass a certain threshhold of quality, so you don't annoy people with idiotic guesses. That's very interesting that you say this. In my own amateur physics and math, I'm coming from a very different place than most. So I find the jigsaw puzzle aspect of learning to be most fascinating as I think I'm building a different puzzle than most. I dropped out of college when I was 19 to trade commodities. Not because I disliked school, but because I was bored with the pace of it. I applied a year early to Harvard, M.I.T. and Worcester Polytechnic Institute which were both near where I lived. Neither of my parents went to college so I filled out the applications myself a few days before the deadline and knew nothing about the process. I didn't get into M.I.T. or Harvard, but I did get into W.P.I. so I went to college early there. But after a year and a half, I found I was learning much more at work after class where I was writing algorithmic commodity trading systems on an Apple II. The upshot is that I stopped my math and science education at a very weird spot given my aptitude and interest level. For example, I was on the math team and we won the MA state competition when I was a freshman in high school, I was always taking as many classes in math, physics, chemistry, etc. possible, yet the last class I took in college was differential equations, so I would have been on a very different trajectory had I stayed in school. I started making up for lost time about three years ago, and most especially in physics because I was interested in trying to figure out places where I might be able to contribution, and fusion energy seemed like one area that had reached an impasse. So I was coming into the field as a complete no-nothing by comparison to even most current undergrads, yet as someone who was very confident in my potential to learn the subject matter and as one who has been successful doing most anything I wanted up 'til that point. So I was not a typical student learning from experts, but a successful adult looking to branch into something more useful to society. Much, as I suspect you were when you decided to branch out into "saving the world." As you might imagine, I have had to filter through a lot of woo and BS on the Internet to figure out what is accepted science. The most accessible forums tend to be populated with a combination of know-it-alls who aren't as smart as they think and those who believe quantum theory explains God and unicorns. I've started to notice patterns too. Some interesting ones. Whether they are the same ones that experts see early in grad school? I don't know. Or if I'm seeing mirages and illusions, too early to tell. Or some new things? Again, too early to tell. And definitely not past the threshold of quality where I'd not annoy people. ;-)
  • 79.
    edited December 2011

    John wrote:

    It works best if you learn about lots of different subjects, so you can spot patterns that nobody has noticed because they relate things that seem drastically different (but turn out not to be).

    Ah, I am such a dilettante. I've changed careers and course in my life so many times I can't even easily recount them all. Not because I failed, but because I love to learn new things. I find applying solutions to problems or perspectives from one domain to another to be great fun and the source of my most important insights.

    For example, I'm currently working on an architecture for dynamic taxonomies for classification of arbitrarily complex subjects in a way that allows for references that continue to work after the taxonomy is changed, as well as for a limited set of "moves" that can transfer any taxonomy to another. It borrows ideas from my experience building the internals of database systems using B+ trees which are one of the standard algorithms for building indices. When you work on database internals you learn to thing intuitively on a recursive basis since that's how all the code works. You also learn to think of structures as dynamic since the complexity of the code stems from the need for maintaining efficient routes to any given part of the data no matter the order the data comes in, or the size. So change is the norm, not the exception.

    Further, when you build very complex software systems, certain ideas or patterns emerge. One of the patterns is that keeping versions at the object level greatly increases the ability of the system to change over time. When reading objects off the disk, or over a network, if you know that you are reading an old object, you can fill in appropriate values for new attributes that might have been added later. This makes it easier to change small pieces at a time since the change can be isolated.

    This pattern also applies to a dynamic taxonomy since you can store version numbers with a reference and then you can keep a map of the transformations as part of the taxonomy itself. When you get a reference using an out-of-date version, you can transform the reference because the dynamic taxonomy is aware of the intervening transformations. You can also inform the system that used the out-of-date reference of the new value.

    Now this may have been done somewhere already, and I still don't know whether or not it will be more or less useful than other approaches being considered by experts. One of the reasons I am working on this particular problem is that this should be an easy question to answer, but it isn't.

    It ought to be pretty easy to find papers on a subject that I am not yet an expert in. But it isn't. I can't easily find even the people in the various information sciences that might be working on this or similar problems. A common language would be very helpful, but we'll never agree on common definitions, so we need to have ways of dealing with that reality. If you are working in information science and attend the right conferences, this information is available to you. If you are a dilettante, you don't know the people and you haven't been attending the conferences.

    This general class of problem is one that impedes collaboration and learning on a global scale, and by implication, the Azimuth Project. There is so much information that we need more efficient filtering and searching mechanisms. We can't up the semantic content of the web unless we can agree on meaning, which requires an underlying representation that can be fluid and which can change over time as our knowledge grows and as we learn how different domains relate to each other in different ways; and one that will support multiple views/maps simultaneously with translation between views/maps so we don't have to get into fights over which view is "better" than the other.

    One thing I am certain of, is that the particular approach I am using is not one that would have occurred to me had I not had significant experience building database internals which is a completely different field than the study of taxonomies and classification systems, in general.

    It's much easier to make progress between existing specialities than within them. That's where there's the most room for growth: in the spaces between things people are already interested in.

    That also seems to be what I am most interested in. New ground in the spaces between.

    It's often very funny how you can sometimes seem to be a genius when you take a simple idea from one field and plant it into a discussion in an unrelated field where its application seems obvious.

    Comment Source:John wrote: >It works best if you learn about lots of different subjects, so you can spot patterns that nobody has noticed because they relate things that seem drastically different (but turn out not to be). Ah, I am such a dilettante. I've changed careers and course in my life so many times I can't even easily recount them all. Not because I failed, but because I love to learn *new* things. I find applying solutions to problems or perspectives from one domain to another to be great fun and the source of my most important insights. For example, I'm currently working on an architecture for dynamic taxonomies for classification of arbitrarily complex subjects in a way that allows for references that continue to work after the taxonomy is changed, as well as for a limited set of "moves" that can transfer any taxonomy to another. It borrows ideas from my experience building the internals of database systems using B+ trees which are one of the standard algorithms for building indices. When you work on database internals you learn to thing intuitively on a recursive basis since that's how all the code works. You also learn to think of structures as dynamic since the complexity of the code stems from the need for maintaining efficient routes to any given part of the data no matter the order the data comes in, or the size. So change is the norm, not the exception. Further, when you build very complex software systems, certain ideas or patterns emerge. One of the patterns is that keeping versions at the object level greatly increases the ability of the system to change over time. When reading objects off the disk, or over a network, if you know that you are reading an old object, you can fill in appropriate values for new attributes that might have been added later. This makes it easier to change small pieces at a time since the change can be isolated. This pattern also applies to a dynamic taxonomy since you can store version numbers with a reference and then you can keep a map of the transformations as part of the taxonomy itself. When you get a reference using an out-of-date version, you can transform the reference because the dynamic taxonomy is aware of the intervening transformations. You can also inform the system that used the out-of-date reference of the new value. Now this may have been done somewhere already, and I still don't know whether or not it will be more or less useful than other approaches being considered by experts. One of the reasons I am working on this particular problem is that this should be an easy question to answer, but it isn't. It ought to be pretty easy to find papers on a subject that I am not yet an expert in. But it isn't. I can't easily find even the people in the various information sciences that might be working on this or similar problems. A common language would be very helpful, but we'll never agree on common definitions, so we need to have ways of dealing with that reality. If you are working in information science and attend the right conferences, this information is available to you. If you are a dilettante, you don't know the people and you haven't been attending the conferences. This general class of problem is one that impedes collaboration and learning on a global scale, and by implication, the Azimuth Project. There is so much information that we need more efficient filtering and searching mechanisms. We can't up the semantic content of the web unless we can agree on meaning, which requires an underlying representation that can be fluid and which can change over time as our knowledge grows and as we learn how different domains relate to each other in different ways; and one that will support multiple views/maps simultaneously with translation between views/maps so we don't have to get into fights over which view is "better" than the other. One thing I am certain of, is that the particular approach I am using is not one that would have occurred to me had I not had significant experience building database internals which is a completely different field than the study of taxonomies and classification systems, in general. > It's much easier to make progress _between_ existing specialities than _within_ them. That's where there's the most room for growth: in the spaces _between_ things people are already interested in. That also seems to be what I am most interested in. New ground in the spaces _between_. It's often very funny how you can sometimes seem to be a genius when you take a simple idea from one field and plant it into a discussion in an unrelated field where its application seems obvious.
  • 80.

    Curtis wrote:

    It's often very funny how you can sometimes seem to be a genius when you take a simple idea from one field and plant it into a discussion in an unrelated field where its application seems obvious.

    Yes, that's one good trick to do. Feynman mentions another. According to Gian-Carlo Rota:

    Richard Feynman was fond of giving the following advice on how to be a genius. You have to keep a dozen of your favorite problems constantly present in your mind, although by and large they will lay in a dormant state. Every time you hear or read a new trick or a new result, test it against each of your twelve problems to see whether it helps. Every once in a while there will be a hit, and people will say: 'How did he do it? He must be a genius!'

    Comment Source:Curtis wrote: > It's often very funny how you can sometimes seem to be a genius when you take a simple idea from one field and plant it into a discussion in an unrelated field where its application seems obvious. Yes, that's one good trick to do. Feynman mentions another. According to Gian-Carlo Rota: > Richard Feynman was fond of giving the following advice on how to be a genius. You have to keep a dozen of your favorite problems constantly present in your mind, although by and large they will lay in a dormant state. Every time you hear or read a new trick or a new result, test it against each of your twelve problems to see whether it helps. Every once in a while there will be a hit, and people will say: 'How did he do it? He must be a genius!'
  • 81.

    In my work on thermodynamics I've been talking a lot about Gibbs free energy, Helmholtz free energy and other thermodynamic potentials. But 'free energy' has another meaning. I'm not sure if that's why I got this email.

    Dear John,

    You seem to be one who would support efforts to get free energy "out in the open." And so I write You in the hopes that You can help in My effort to do so. If this is of interest, please pass the word along!

    A petition has been started on Change.org for the US Government to release electrogravitics to the public.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/us-military-release-the-technology-of-electrogravitics

    Why This Is Important

    My early childhood was defined by My father's excitement for His work in electrogravitics, then (1950's) being worked on openly by all major aerospace companies. My father, a CalTech graduate and one of the top electrical engineers at one of these companies, would tell Me about the successes of His experiements (gravity control and overunity (free energy)), and tell Me what the world I would grow up in would look like.

    Cars would fly, cities would float, and We would have all the energy We could use.

    Then, one night He came home from work late and woke Me up to tell Me We couldn't talk about the flying cars, the floating cities, the free energy anymore. "They want it secret for now."

    Since My childhood, I have studied economics, coming to the conclusion (later confirmed by Jeremy Rifkin in His book, Entropy) that all money represented was meaningful energy expended. One can grasp this most easily by considering the first hunter, fisherperson, gatherer, farmer, miner. The stuff They gained/used was free: critters, fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seed, sun, soil, rain, ores. It was the meaningful energy expended that gave "value" to the stuff: the killing, fishing, picking, tilling, weeding, harvesting, mining, transporting.

    Add abundantly what money represents - energy - and the need for money (and the control of others it affords) in all its forms (barter, trade, work exchange, coin, bills, electronic funds...) will dissipate and what is left is free.

    Add robots to do all the necessary jobs no One wants to do to free energy, and Humans will be freed to follow Their bliss - within the three Laws:

    Do not willfully hurt or kill another Being Do not willfully take or damage another Being's property Do not willfully defraud another Being

    (A Being (cap the "B") is sentient, sapient; animals are beings)

    Waste would be virtually eliminated: supermarkets presently throw out hundreds of thousands of tons of food a month! Distributing by need and not profit will end this waste. Products would be made to last instead of being designed to break so as to ensure future sales. Theft-protecting packaging would be unnecessary. And so on.

    Organic farming would be prized and GMO (genetically modified organisms) would be eliminated.

    Motive for war will be virtually eliminated. With no profit motive for war suppliers and "infrastructure rebuilders," wars will not be instigated to ensure profits.

    Poverty will not exist.

    Hunger will be eliminated.

    Education (at all levels) will be free for all.

    Replace the work "ethic" (a slave's ethic: enrich the rich with Your Human energy) with a Betterment Ethic and the Humans who better things will be paid in appreciation, status, name-recognition and Self-satisfaction, the new "coin."

    Create a central website where problems can be brought up locally and People can “vote” to bump a problem up, down, show apathy by not voting, and chime in with solutions (which can be cheered and booed). Issues will drop off after the original poster indicates that the problem has been resolved or withdrawn, or there has been no activity after, say, six months (that is not set in stone). Social responsibility will be defined as spending 15 minutes a day examining issues on this site.

    Also, issues with some set number of bumps up will be considered issues that need a wider awareness and go to regional sections. From there, continental, perhaps, and then global, as more are needed to be involved in solving the problem. Problems will beget the awareness to solve them.

    Without money as a motive, problems will be solved more creatively, directly, harmoniously, and within the three Laws.

    Leaders of the moment will emerge from this to solve problems as they arise.

    Open-source all public works programming. This allows for many to make suggestions for betterment, and ensures that no one will create outside the three Laws. It also eliminates “back doors,” and other surreptitious software segments that bog down the clean functioning of the program. Without money as a motive, programmers will be proud to offer Their work for scrutinization and use, openly and freely. Status will be gained for creating the best programs.

    Though this will not create a utopia, it will be vastly better than what We now have, in this scarcity-defined system, on this planet.


    I have found many who have said They would sign, but They fear being "put on a list." This is the very thing the power elite count on. I say... Cast away fear! Stand and be counted as One who would oppose Them. In the long run, We will overcome - IF We stop allowing fear to be used as Their weapon against Us!

    So... To any who read this, ask Yourself, "Will I empower the power elite to control Me with fear?" And then give strong consideration to signing this petition.

    Sincerely,

    Amaterasu

    Comment Source:In my work on thermodynamics I've been talking a lot about Gibbs free energy, Helmholtz free energy and other thermodynamic potentials. But 'free energy' has another meaning. I'm not sure if that's why I got this email. > Dear John, > You seem to be one who would support efforts to get free energy "out in the open." And so I write You in the hopes that You can help in My effort to do so. If this is of interest, please pass the word along! > A petition has been started on Change.org for the US Government to release electrogravitics to the public. > [http://www.change.org/petitions/us-military-release-the-technology-of-electrogravitics](http://www.change.org/petitions/us-military-release-the-technology-of-electrogravitics) > Why This Is Important > My early childhood was defined by My father's excitement for His work in electrogravitics, then (1950's) being worked on openly by all major aerospace companies. My father, a CalTech graduate and one of the top electrical engineers at one of these companies, would tell Me about the successes of His experiements (gravity control and overunity (free energy)), and tell Me what the world I would grow up in would look like. > Cars would fly, cities would float, and We would have all the energy We could use. > Then, one night He came home from work late and woke Me up to tell Me We couldn't talk about the flying cars, the floating cities, the free energy anymore. "They want it secret for now." > Since My childhood, I have studied economics, coming to the conclusion (later confirmed by Jeremy Rifkin in His book, Entropy) that all money represented was meaningful energy expended. One can grasp this most easily by considering the first hunter, fisherperson, gatherer, farmer, miner. The stuff They gained/used was free: critters, fish, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seed, sun, soil, rain, ores. It was the meaningful energy expended that gave "value" to the stuff: the killing, fishing, picking, tilling, weeding, harvesting, mining, transporting. > Add abundantly what money represents - energy - and the need for money (and the control of others it affords) in all its forms (barter, trade, work exchange, coin, bills, electronic funds...) will dissipate and what is left is free. > Add robots to do all the necessary jobs no One wants to do to free energy, and Humans will be freed to follow Their bliss - within the three Laws: > Do not willfully hurt or kill another Being > Do not willfully take or damage another Being's property > Do not willfully defraud another Being > (A Being (cap the "B") is sentient, sapient; animals are beings) > Waste would be virtually eliminated: supermarkets presently throw out hundreds of thousands of tons of food a month! Distributing by need and not profit will end this waste. Products would be made to last instead of being designed to break so as to ensure future sales. Theft-protecting packaging would be unnecessary. And so on. > Organic farming would be prized and GMO (genetically modified organisms) would be eliminated. > Motive for war will be virtually eliminated. With no profit motive for war suppliers and "infrastructure rebuilders," wars will not be instigated to ensure profits. > Poverty will not exist. > Hunger will be eliminated. > Education (at all levels) will be free for all. > Replace the work "ethic" (a slave's ethic: enrich the rich with Your Human energy) with a Betterment Ethic and the Humans who better things will be paid in appreciation, status, name-recognition and Self-satisfaction, the new "coin." > Create a central website where problems can be brought up locally and People can “vote” to bump a problem up, down, show apathy by not voting, and chime in with solutions (which can be cheered and booed). Issues will drop off after the original poster indicates that the problem has been resolved or withdrawn, or there has been no activity after, say, six months (that is not set in stone). Social responsibility will be defined as spending 15 minutes a day examining issues on this site. > Also, issues with some set number of bumps up will be considered issues that need a wider awareness and go to regional sections. From there, continental, perhaps, and then global, as more are needed to be involved in solving the problem. Problems will beget the awareness to solve them. > Without money as a motive, problems will be solved more creatively, directly, harmoniously, and within the three Laws. > Leaders of the moment will emerge from this to solve problems as they arise. > Open-source all public works programming. This allows for many to make suggestions for betterment, and ensures that no one will create outside the three Laws. It also eliminates “back doors,” and other surreptitious software segments that bog down the clean functioning of the program. Without money as a motive, programmers will be proud to offer Their work for scrutinization and use, openly and freely. Status will be gained for creating the best programs. > Though this will not create a utopia, it will be vastly better than what We now have, in this scarcity-defined system, on this planet. > ______________________ > I have found many who have said They would sign, but They fear being "put on a list." This is the very thing the power elite count on. I say... Cast away fear! Stand and be counted as One who would oppose Them. In the long run, We will overcome - IF We stop allowing fear to be used as Their weapon against Us! > So... To any who read this, ask Yourself, "Will I empower the power elite to control Me with fear?" And then give strong consideration to signing this petition. > Sincerely, > Amaterasu
  • 82.

    Kopernikus' priest-colleagues based their "knowledge" on Ptolemy's description of the heaven, mathematically precisely modeled with helicoids, driven with the "uncnceivable God's will". And, the "most enlightened" of them conceitedly considered themselves capable to conceive the God's messages sent as comets, or meteors, or as the deviations in helicoidal paths. Causing wars and suffer.

    At first glance, there is no difference between you and them - you have "only" replaced the God with USA (Uncertainty-Spontaneity-Ambiguity). But, there is the immense difference.

    You are going to be remembered as the Grand Masters of Mathematical Mysticism (as the distinguished representatives of the greatest and strangest deviation of human thinking in human history, of the ultra-stupidity, the stupidity masked with mathematics, the stupidity presented as ultimate science, and which makes the medieval dark ages ultra naive in that respect. People then had only a tiny fraction of your knowledge. And you had the true knowledge at your disposal, but you deviated it immensely. You question everything, but your ideas. You try to invent the world. You play Gods - gods of strings/branes/virtual-paricles/black-holes/multivesrses. It could be ok if your inner drive for that would be the wish to know. But it is not - it is the wish to be "the One", the ambition, the self-esteem, self-promotion).

    You did not fail only as scientists, you failed morally and ethically - the divine truth was presented to you, and you ignored it - your conceit and arrogance prevented you in that. And not only that, but the divine truth presented to you is so simple, so bright, so clear and understandable, that your kids and grandchildren will learn it in high school - which makes you unspeakably stupid.

    Your ignoring of my previous email means that you consider me as "the crackpot". I am not offended. I know that you, essentially, classify Newton and Maxwell the same. And, yes, that is my class. I stood on their shoulders when I derived the FEM theory. Now, they may rest in peace.

    Poor you - from black-hole-mind, and USA-mind, conceited and arrogant mind, there is no escape. Enjoy your "distinguishness" as the "great professors" and "scientists". There only a few months left for that.

    Kind regards,

    The one who just wanted to know the truth, who found that out, and wanted to share that. The one driven with love(goodness) and reason. The one whom your "PhD greatnesses" call "the pathetic crackpot".

    Comment Source:> Kopernikus' priest-colleagues based their "knowledge" on Ptolemy's description of the heaven, mathematically precisely modeled with helicoids, driven with the "uncnceivable God's will". And, the "most enlightened" of them conceitedly considered themselves capable to conceive the God's messages sent as comets, or meteors, or as the deviations in helicoidal paths. Causing wars and suffer. > At first glance, there is no difference between you and them - you have "only" replaced the God with USA (Uncertainty-Spontaneity-Ambiguity). But, there is the immense difference. > You are going to be remembered as the Grand Masters of Mathematical Mysticism (as the distinguished representatives of the greatest and strangest deviation of human thinking in human history, of the ultra-stupidity, the stupidity masked with mathematics, the stupidity presented as ultimate science, and which makes the medieval dark ages ultra naive in that respect. People then had only a tiny fraction of your knowledge. And you had the true knowledge at your disposal, but you deviated it immensely. You question everything, but your ideas. You try to invent the world. You play Gods - gods of strings/branes/virtual-paricles/black-holes/multivesrses. It could be ok if your inner drive for that would be the wish to know. But it is not - it is the wish to be "the One", the ambition, the self-esteem, self-promotion). > You did not fail only as scientists, you failed morally and ethically - the divine truth was presented to you, and you ignored it - your conceit and arrogance prevented you in that. And not only that, but the divine truth presented to you is so simple, so bright, so clear and understandable, that your kids and grandchildren will learn it in high school - which makes you unspeakably stupid. > Your ignoring of my previous email means that you consider me as "the crackpot". I am not offended. I know that you, essentially, classify Newton and Maxwell the same. And, yes, that is my class. I stood on their shoulders when I derived the FEM theory. Now, they may rest in peace. > Poor you - from black-hole-mind, and USA-mind, conceited and arrogant mind, there is no escape. Enjoy your "distinguishness" as the "great professors" and "scientists". There only a few months left for that. > Kind regards, > The one who just wanted to know the truth, who found that out, and wanted to share that. The one driven with love(goodness) and reason. The one whom your "PhD greatnesses" call "the pathetic crackpot".
  • 83.
    edited September 2012

    Part 1 of an email I got, sent to Volkmar Weiss and many others:

    DEAR DR. WEISS:

    WE'RE ABOUT THE SAME AGE SINCE I JUST TURNED 68. I'M STILL PUZZLED ABOUT JUST WHERE YOU ARE AND WHY; ARE YOU RETIRED/EMERITUS OR STILL ACTIVELY WORKING?

    LET ME CLARIFY AND CORRECT WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN ABOUT OUR INTERACTION HEREIN WITH SOME DETAILED BACKGROUND.

    I AM WHAT SOME CALL A "POLYMATH"(NOT A PARROT WHO DOES MATHEMATICS), SINCE I HAVE SYNAESTHESIA(BRAIN TRAUMA(1977)) AND SEE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN OSTENSIBLY-DISPARATE "SPECIFICITY OF COMPLEXITY" TACTICS IN OSTENSIBLY-DISPARATE FIELDS-OF-ENDEAVOR("FOES") SEPARATED BY "JARGONIAL-OBFUSCATION"(LOTS OF FANCY SHMANCY LINGO/SPRACHE TO SNOW THE RUBES/SUCKERS, WHICH IS THE SOCIOLOGICAL-DYSFUNCTIONALITY OF THE WOULD BE "SCIENCES", BUT SADLY ALAS MERE SEANCES("WHERE THE INSIDERS ALL HOLD HANDS TO KEEP OUT OUTSIDERS WITH THEIR NO DOUBT INFERIOR IDEAS SINCE THEY ARE NOT THE EXPERTS" QUOTING JOHN BRADSHAW["HEALING THE SHAME THAT BINDS YOU", HAZELDEN(1980s) AND BRIAN MARZTIN, WOLAGANG UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA]

    MY ONLY CONNECTION WITH MATHEMATICS BEING MY RELATIONSHIP TO VERY FAMOUS MATHEMATICIAN CARL LUDWIG SIEGEL(RIP) MY FATHER'S COUSIN)

    I DID MY PH.D. THESIS AT UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND THEN MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNDER GABOR KEMENY[DARTMOUTH UNIVERSITY'S PRESIDENT MATHEMATICIAN JOHN KEMENY'S COUSIN] AFTER STUDYING AN C.C.N.Y.(B.S.-1965), THEN HARVARD UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, THEN NEW YORK UNIVERSITY(M.S.-1968; JEROME PERCUS-COURANT INSTITUTE FOR MATHEMATICS), THEN WORKING FOR ALBERT OVERHAUSER(RIP) AT FORD(1968),THEN UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN(M.S.-1969; FRANK HERARI(RIP)/GRAPH-THEORY APPLIED TO NUCLEAR MANY-BODY THEORY/KARL HECHT AND NOAH SHERMAN(RIP); INTERACTIONS WITH HUGH MONTGOMERY(I SAT IN ON HIS CLASS IN NUMBER-THEORY CIRCA 1968-1969, THEN 1971 OR 1972) RE. EIGENVALUES PAIR-DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION FOR WIGNER-DISTRIBUTIONS: GOE, GUE, GSE; HE GOT THE IDEA FROM ME, NOT FREEMAN DYSON, SINCE I WAS WORKING(1970-1973)ON LIQUIDS/DISORDER-THEORY AT GENERAL MOTORS RESEARCH/TECHNICAL-CENTER) AND FINALLY FOLLOWING KEMENY TO MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY(PH.D.-1970; JOHN HUBBARD[AERE HARWELL] AND NEVILLE MOTT[CAVENDISH LABORATORY/CAMBRIDGE] AND CONYERS HERRING[BELL LABS], CONSULTING; WITH MORREL COHEN[[U. CHICAGO] EXTERNAL-EXAMINER), ON THE PURE-FERMION/FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS HUBBARD-MODEL, WHEREIN I WORKED OUT THE FIRST SPIN-OBITAL DEGENERATE HUBBARD-MODEL("SODHM"; BUT NO Y!!!) PUBLISHED IN PHYSICA STATUS SOLIDI(1972; 1973) WHICH WAS LATER ELABORATED UPON BY KUBO AND KAWABATA AND BY CYROT ET. AL.[M. Cyrot and C. Lyon-Caen. J. Phys. C 6 ( 1973) L 274; 36 (1975) 253. 1531 ; C. Lacroix and M. Cyrot. J. Phys. C....], SUBSEQUENTLY I PUBLISHED OTHERS ON PURE-FERMION/FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS IN JOURNAL OF MAGNETISM AND MAGNETIC MATERIALS (JMM) FROM 1976-1980 AND TWO IN NOW DEFUNCT MAGNETISM LETTERS(1980).

    THE MOST INFAMOUS WERE JMM 7, 312(1978) IN WHICHI EXPERIMENTALY DISCOVERED GRANULAR-GIANT-MAGNETORESISTANCE(A FULL DECADE BEFORE FERT(1988) AND GRUENBERG(1989) WHO GOT THE 2007 PHYSICS NOBEL-PRIZE FOR MY G-GMR!!!AND JMMM 7, 38(1978)

    BUT BY ORIGINAL TRAINING I WAS A MINERALOGIST/PETROLOGIST/METALLURGIST, AND STILL COLLECT MINERALS PLUS OWN TWO TECHNOLOGIES IN WATER PRODUCTION ENTITLED"FLYING-WATER" AND ANOTHER RE SOLID-STATE CARBON-SEQUESTRATION IN, NOT N ESCAPABLE CO2 OR CH4 GAS, BUT VALUABLE MARKETABLE SALEABLE PROFITABLE SOLID-STATE CARB-IDES(TiC; WC; SiC; COAL-ASH CARBIDES="CARBORUNDUM"), INSPIRED BY AN AGE OLD QUALITATIVE-ANALYSIS TOL OF CLASSIC-MINERALOGY KNOWN AS BLOWPIPE-ANALYSIS(LAST KNOWN MENTION ANYWHERE IN TWO BOOKS FROM 1935 AND 1948). I PUBLISHED FOUR PAPERS ON SOLID-STATE CHEMITRY/PHYSICS OF CARBIDES IN: PHYSICA STATUS SOLIDI(1972); AND DEFUNCT JOURNAL "SEMICONDUCTORS AND INSULATORS" (1979).

    FIRST MY PAPER YOU QUOTE [Generalized-disorder collective-boson mode-softening universality-principle. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 40 (1980) 453-467] WAS THE CULMINATION OF A DECADE OF WORK ON THE THEORY OF LIQUIDS BY ME[IN SIR NORMAN MARCH'S JOURNAL ENTITLED: PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY OF LIQUIDS: 4(4) (1975); 5(1) (1976)-SOME EIGHT PAPERS IN ALL], BASICALLY I NOTICED SIMILARITIES BETWEEN COLLECTIVE-BOSON DISPERSION-RELATIONS NEGATIVE-DISPERSION MODE-SOFTDENING, ORIGINALY BY LANDAU(1941) AND FEYNMAN(1952), BUT EXTENDED TO CLASSICAL-DISORDER BY HUBBARD AND BEBE(1967): w(k) =[KINETIC-ENERGY(QUADRATIC MONATONIC-INCREASING)] k^2/S(k) MODULATED BY STATIC STRUCTURE-FACTOR OF VARIOUS TYPES OF DISORDER: HORIZONTALTOPOLOGICAL) AND/OR VERTICAL(ALLOY).

    IN 1982-1985 HAVING MOVED TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, I CONSULTED FOR CHARLES ROSEN(MANAGER OF A.-I. RESEARCH AT S.R.I. AFTER WORLD WAR TWO), CEO OF MACHINE-INTELLIGENCE[ONE OF BERNARD WIDROW'S/STANFORD OLD COLLEAGUES FROM WHEN I WAS A VERY LITTLE BOY], AND VESKO MARINOV (AND ADOLPH SMITH), VICE-PRESIDENT OF EXXON ENTERPRISES/A.-I. IN SUNNYVALE/SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA. ON ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE,

    Comment Source:Part 1 of an email I got, sent to Volkmar Weiss and many others: > > DEAR DR. WEISS: > > > > WE'RE ABOUT THE SAME AGE SINCE I JUST TURNED 68. I'M STILL PUZZLED ABOUT JUST WHERE YOU ARE AND WHY; ARE YOU RETIRED/EMERITUS OR STILL ACTIVELY WORKING? > > > > LET ME CLARIFY AND CORRECT WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN ABOUT OUR INTERACTION HEREIN WITH SOME DETAILED BACKGROUND. > > > > I AM WHAT SOME CALL A "POLYMATH"(NOT A PARROT WHO DOES MATHEMATICS), SINCE I HAVE SYNAESTHESIA(BRAIN TRAUMA(1977)) AND SEE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN OSTENSIBLY-DISPARATE "SPECIFICITY OF COMPLEXITY" TACTICS IN OSTENSIBLY-DISPARATE FIELDS-OF-ENDEAVOR("FOES") SEPARATED BY "JARGONIAL-OBFUSCATION"(LOTS OF FANCY SHMANCY LINGO/SPRACHE TO SNOW THE RUBES/SUCKERS, WHICH IS THE SOCIOLOGICAL-DYSFUNCTIONALITY OF THE WOULD BE "SCIENCES", BUT SADLY ALAS MERE SEANCES("WHERE THE INSIDERS ALL HOLD HANDS TO KEEP OUT OUTSIDERS WITH THEIR NO DOUBT INFERIOR IDEAS SINCE THEY ARE NOT THE EXPERTS" QUOTING JOHN BRADSHAW["HEALING THE SHAME THAT BINDS YOU", HAZELDEN(1980s) AND BRIAN MARZTIN, WOLAGANG UNIVERSITY, AUSTRALIA] > > > > MY ONLY CONNECTION WITH MATHEMATICS BEING MY RELATIONSHIP TO VERY FAMOUS MATHEMATICIAN CARL LUDWIG SIEGEL(RIP) MY FATHER'S COUSIN) > > > > I DID MY PH.D. THESIS AT UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND THEN MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY UNDER GABOR KEMENY[DARTMOUTH UNIVERSITY'S PRESIDENT MATHEMATICIAN JOHN KEMENY'S COUSIN] AFTER STUDYING AN C.C.N.Y.(B.S.-1965), THEN HARVARD UNIVERSITY, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, THEN NEW YORK UNIVERSITY(M.S.-1968; JEROME PERCUS-COURANT INSTITUTE FOR MATHEMATICS), THEN WORKING FOR ALBERT OVERHAUSER(RIP) AT FORD(1968),THEN UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN(M.S.-1969; FRANK HERARI(RIP)/GRAPH-THEORY APPLIED TO NUCLEAR MANY-BODY THEORY/KARL HECHT AND NOAH SHERMAN(RIP); INTERACTIONS WITH HUGH MONTGOMERY(I SAT IN ON HIS CLASS IN NUMBER-THEORY CIRCA 1968-1969, THEN 1971 OR 1972) RE. EIGENVALUES PAIR-DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION FOR WIGNER-DISTRIBUTIONS: GOE, GUE, GSE; HE GOT THE IDEA FROM ME, NOT FREEMAN DYSON, SINCE I WAS WORKING(1970-1973)ON LIQUIDS/DISORDER-THEORY AT GENERAL MOTORS RESEARCH/TECHNICAL-CENTER) AND FINALLY FOLLOWING KEMENY TO MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY(PH.D.-1970; JOHN HUBBARD[AERE HARWELL] AND NEVILLE MOTT[CAVENDISH LABORATORY/CAMBRIDGE] AND CONYERS HERRING[BELL LABS], CONSULTING; WITH MORREL COHEN[[U. CHICAGO] EXTERNAL-EXAMINER), ON THE PURE-FERMION/FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS HUBBARD-MODEL, WHEREIN I WORKED OUT THE FIRST SPIN-OBITAL DEGENERATE HUBBARD-MODEL("SODHM"; BUT NO Y!!!) PUBLISHED IN PHYSICA STATUS SOLIDI(1972; 1973) WHICH WAS LATER ELABORATED UPON BY KUBO AND KAWABATA AND BY CYROT ET. AL.[M. Cyrot and C. Lyon-Caen. J. Phys. C 6 ( 1973) L 274; 36 (1975) 253. 1531 ; C. Lacroix and M. Cyrot. J. Phys. C....], SUBSEQUENTLY I PUBLISHED OTHERS ON PURE-FERMION/FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS IN JOURNAL OF MAGNETISM AND MAGNETIC MATERIALS (JMM) FROM 1976-1980 AND TWO IN NOW DEFUNCT MAGNETISM LETTERS(1980). > > > > THE MOST INFAMOUS WERE JMM 7, 312(1978) IN WHICHI EXPERIMENTALY DISCOVERED GRANULAR-GIANT-MAGNETORESISTANCE(A FULL DECADE BEFORE FERT(1988) AND GRUENBERG(1989) WHO GOT THE 2007 PHYSICS NOBEL-PRIZE FOR MY G-GMR!!!AND JMMM 7, 38(1978) > > > > BUT BY ORIGINAL TRAINING I WAS A MINERALOGIST/PETROLOGIST/METALLURGIST, AND STILL COLLECT MINERALS PLUS OWN TWO TECHNOLOGIES IN WATER PRODUCTION ENTITLED"FLYING-WATER" AND ANOTHER RE SOLID-STATE CARBON-SEQUESTRATION IN, NOT N ESCAPABLE CO2 OR CH4 GAS, BUT VALUABLE MARKETABLE SALEABLE PROFITABLE SOLID-STATE CARB-IDES(TiC; WC; SiC; COAL-ASH CARBIDES="CARBORUNDUM"), INSPIRED BY AN AGE OLD QUALITATIVE-ANALYSIS TOL OF CLASSIC-MINERALOGY KNOWN AS BLOWPIPE-ANALYSIS(LAST KNOWN MENTION ANYWHERE IN TWO BOOKS FROM 1935 AND 1948). I PUBLISHED FOUR PAPERS ON SOLID-STATE CHEMITRY/PHYSICS OF CARBIDES IN: PHYSICA STATUS SOLIDI(1972); AND DEFUNCT JOURNAL "SEMICONDUCTORS AND INSULATORS" (1979). > > > > FIRST MY PAPER YOU QUOTE [Generalized-disorder collective-boson mode-softening universality-principle. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 40 (1980) 453-467] WAS THE CULMINATION OF A DECADE OF WORK ON THE THEORY OF LIQUIDS BY ME[IN SIR NORMAN MARCH'S JOURNAL ENTITLED: PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY OF LIQUIDS: 4(4) (1975); 5(1) (1976)-SOME EIGHT PAPERS IN ALL], BASICALLY I NOTICED SIMILARITIES BETWEEN COLLECTIVE-BOSON DISPERSION-RELATIONS NEGATIVE-DISPERSION MODE-SOFTDENING, ORIGINALY BY LANDAU(1941) AND FEYNMAN(1952), BUT EXTENDED TO CLASSICAL-DISORDER BY HUBBARD AND BEBE(1967): w(k) =[KINETIC-ENERGY(QUADRATIC MONATONIC-INCREASING)] k^2/S(k) MODULATED BY STATIC STRUCTURE-FACTOR OF VARIOUS TYPES OF DISORDER: HORIZONTALTOPOLOGICAL) AND/OR VERTICAL(ALLOY). > > > > IN 1982-1985 HAVING MOVED TO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, I CONSULTED FOR CHARLES ROSEN(MANAGER OF A.-I. RESEARCH AT S.R.I. AFTER WORLD WAR TWO), CEO OF MACHINE-INTELLIGENCE[ONE OF BERNARD WIDROW'S/STANFORD OLD COLLEAGUES FROM WHEN I WAS A VERY LITTLE BOY], AND VESKO MARINOV (AND ADOLPH SMITH), VICE-PRESIDENT OF EXXON ENTERPRISES/A.-I. IN SUNNYVALE/SANTA CLARA, CALIFORNIA. ON ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE,
  • 84.
    edited September 2012

    Part 2 of an email I got:

    THEY GAVE ME A PROBLEM TO SPEED UP ARTIFICIAL NEURAL-NETWORKS WHICH HERETOFOR I HAD NEVER EVEN HEARD OF. BUT BEING A FLAGRANT NON-EXPERT I NOTICED SOMETHING THAT ALL AHE COMPUTER-"SCIENTISTS"/ENGINEERS IJN A.-I. HAD ALL HERETOFORE COMPLETELY MISSED: THE SIGMOID-FUNCTION ACTIVATING NODES WITHIN NEURAL-NETWORKS WAS JUST PLAIN WRONG!!! THE STATE OF THE ART WAS THEN THE r-SPACE NONSENSE OF "ENERGY-LANDSCAPES" FOR GLOBAL-MNINIMUM SEEKING AND GOING TO(IF SUCH EXISTS) OPTIMIZATION CALLED THE BOLTZMAN-MACHINE AND THEN SIMULATED-ANEALING, OR THE DEMUTH-BEALE(MATLAB) RADIAL-BASIS FUNCTIONS. ALL OF THESE ARE COMPUTATIONALLY-COMPLEX, IN SPACE AND/OR IN TIME, MANDATING/REQUIRING LARGE COMPUTER-RESOURCES AND LONG COMPUTING-TIMES!!! . THIS SIGMOID-FUNCTION, A HEAVISIDE STEP-FUNCTION WAS "1"/[1 + e^(-E/T)] WHOSE DERIVATIVE IS A DIRAC DELTA-FUNCTION(HINT HINT HINT!!!).

    NOW COMES "EUREKA": SIGMOID-FUNCTION, A HEAVISIDE STEP-FUNCTION WAS "1"/[1 + e^(-E/T)] = "1"/[ + 1 + e^(-E/T)] = "1"/[e^(-E/T) + 1] = FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS. SO THESE COMPUTER-"SCIENTISTS" FOLLOWING HINTON-HOPFIELD- BY ROTE WITH ABSOLUTELY NO THINKING ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING BUT ONLY HOW, DOOMED THEIR ANN OPTIMIZATION-PROBLEMS TO EXPENSIVE SLOW DITHERING!!! AND WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS TO AUTOMATICALLY TRAPPING THE SYSTEM IN FALSE LOCAL-MINIMA. SOME VERY SMART STATISTICAL-MECHANISTS (ISRAEL" AMIT, SAMPOLINSKY; US: HOPFIELD,...; FRANCE: MEZAERD, TOULOUSE, ...) ALL MISSED THIS SIMPLE FACT: SO THEY GLAMMED ANNS UP BY SPIN-GLASS r-SPACE MODELS GALORE, ALL DONE WITH VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE RENORMALIZATION-(SEMI)-GROUP AND SOME FANCY MATHEMATICS OR OTHER. WHY? BECAUSE THE FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS + SIGN MEANS THAT THE OPERATORS ANTI-COMMUTE, MEANING THAT THE PAULI EXCLUSION-PRINCIPLE DOMINATES. COMPUTER-"SCIENTISTS" EITHER FORGOT OR NEVER LEARNED THEIR SIMPLE CHEMISTRY/PHYSICS!!! THE HUND'S-RULE PAIRING OF UP-SPIN TO DOWN-SPIN ELECTRONS TRAPS ONE IN LOCAL-MINIMA, CALLED THE CHEMICAL-ELEMENTS. IF THE FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS + SIGN IS SIMPLY CHANGED TO A - SIGN, THE OPERATORS NOW COMMUTE, MEANING THAT PAULI EXCLUSION-PRINCIPLE STOPS DOMINATING. IF THIS HAPPENED IN CHEMISTRY/PHYSICS, ALL THAT WOULD EXIST WOULD BE PHOTONS AND NEUTRINOS GOING OF TO INFINITY, ONLY BOSE-EINSTEIN QUANTUM-STATISTICS EXIST!!! IN THE LANGUAGE OF MY SYNERGETICS PARADIGM AND DICHOTOMY, AKA "FUZZYICS"="CATEGORYICS", THIS "BOSONIZATION" IS THE [LOCALITY] --TO--->>> (...GLOBALITY...) CROSSOVER!!! SO, THE OOPO OF ANNS IN SIMPLY THE + SIGN TO - SIGN CROSSOVER, THE FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS TO BOSE-EINSTEIN QUANTUM-STATISTICS TRANSITION. STEP-FUNCTION WAS "1"/[1 + e^(-E/T)] = "1"/[ + 1 + e^(-E/T)] = "1"/[e^(-E/T) + 1] IS REVERSED TO "1"/[- 1 + e^(-E/T)] = "1"/[ - 1 + e^(-E/T)] = "1"/[e^(-E/T) - 1]; SETS TO MULTI-SETS!! (REFERENCE: GIAN-CARLO ROTA'S(RIP; MIT) UNPUBLISHED BOOK ON PROBABILITY WHICH ONE CAN FIND ONLINE WITH A BIT OF HUNTING. I WAS WORKING WITH HIM ON THIS WHILE VISITING MIT FROM 1992-1997. "SHAZAM" IS SIMPLY THAT ADMITTING THAT AN ANN AND ITS OOPO IS A QUANTUM-STATISTICAL-PROBLEM ADMITS THE POSSIBILITY OF QUANTUM-TUNELING FROM VARIOUS NON-OPTIMAL MINIMA TO THE GLOBAL-MINIMUM OPTIMIZATION. THE QUESTION WAS HOW TO ACCELERATE/FORCE THIS. THE ANSWER WAS TO TAKE THE "1"NUMERATOR AND DECREASE ITS AMPLITUDE/MAGNITUDE TOWARDS ZERO IN A LIMITING SENSE: lim("1" ---> 0) "1"/[- 1 + e^(-E/T)] = lim("1" ---> 0) "1"/[ - 1 + e^(-E/T)] = lim("1" ---> 0) "1"/[e^(-E/T) - 1] = DIRAC DELTA-FUNCTION(w-0).

    THEN COMES "SHAZAM"(CAPTAIN MARVEL'S MAGIC WORDS TO TRANSFORM HIMSELF INTO A SUPERHERO) AKA "BOSONIZATION":

    THUS "EUREKA" + "SHAZAM" = OPTIMIZING OPTIMIZATION-(ANN)-PROBLEMS OPTIMALLY(OOPO)

    SOME QUANTUM-STATISTICS INSIGHT: THE FERMI-DIRAC VERSUS BOSE-EINSTEIN DICHOTOMY IS A EUCLID-DEMOSTHENES-DESCARTES CONIC-SECTIONS DICHOTOMY: FERMI-DIRAC HOMOTOPY TO AN ELLIPSE VIA PARABOLA-CROSSOVER TO BOSE-EINSTEIN HYPERBOLA: TAYLOR/POWER-SERIES EXPANSION OF ONLY THE DENOMINATOR-EXPONENTIAL YIELDS, IN THE LOW E/T LIMIT, RESPECTIVELY: "1"/[e^(-E/T) + 1] = "1"/[1 + (-E/T) + ...] + 1 ] = "1"/2 = E/T ~ w^(0)), WHITE/RANDOM NOISE POWER-SPECTRUM. --VERSUS--->>> "1"/[e^(-E/T) - 1] = "1"/[1 + (-E/T) + ...] - 1 ] = E/T ~ w ~ w^(1.000...), THE FAMOUS PINK/FLICKER/ONE-OVER-FREQUENCY NOISE POWER-SPECTRUM. IN FACT, THERE IS A VERY CONSISTENT + SIGN VERSUS - SIGN DICHOTOMY:

    ELLIPSE: MINUS-SIGNS: DENOMINATOR AND COMUTATION-RELATIONS AND PARABOLA-EQUATION VERSUS: NO SIGN TO 1 IN DENOMINATOR BECAUSE THERE IS NO 1 THERE = MAXWELL-BOLTZMANN CLASSICAL-STATISTICS (THE OBJECT OF ANNS BOLTZMANN-MACHINE + SIMULATED-ANNEALING HYPERBOLA: MINUS-SIGNS: DENOMINATOR AND COMMUTATION-RELATIONS AND HYPERBOLA-EQUATION SO WHAT I EFFECTED IS CALLED A NOISE-INDUCED PHASE-TRANSITION(A "NIT"; VERY DIFFERENT FROM MERE STOCHASTIC-RESONANCE TINKERING WITH MERE WHITE-NOISE AMPLITUDES; WHAT I DID WAS TO ALTER THE NOISE POWER-SPECTRUM!!!

    QUANTUM-STATISTICS ARE EUCLID-DEMOSTHENES-DESCARTES CONIC-SECTIONS!!! (AND EULER-POLYNOMIALS VERSUS BERNOULLI-POLYNOMIALS GENERATING-FUNCTIONS DICHOTOMY)

    SO INDEED I GUESS I AM THE FATHER OF MUCH OVER-HYPED QUANTUM-COMPUTING, AT LEAST FOR ANNS OOPO IN A.-I.

    LASTLY THE BIANCONI-BARABASI AND ALBERT-BARABASI PAPERS ON NETWORKS, STARTING OUT WITH ABSTRACT GRAPH-THEORY BUT AS FINALES MAPPING THEIR RESULTS ON TO ONLY BOSE-EINSTEIN QUANTUM-STATISTICS WITH BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION, SO IF ONE APPLIES THEIR CONCLUSIONS TO EITHER ARTIFICIAL NEURAL-NETWORKS OR BIOLOGICAL NEURAL-NETWORKS, MY ORIGINAL ANN BEC AND YOUR BNN BEC ARE NOT AT ALL SURPRISING IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER!!!

    AND FOR BIOLOGICAL NEURAL-NETWORKS THIS AGREES IN PRINCIPLE WITH THE FROHLICH-MOSSBAUER-GOLDANSKII-DEL GUIDICE-POPP-LI-YOUNG-... BIOPHYSICS THEORY OF HEALTH AS "1"/f-"NOISE" POWER-SPECTRUM AND ITS CONDENSATION INTO BEC AS LIFE.

    Comment Source:Part 2 of an email I got: > > THEY GAVE ME A PROBLEM TO SPEED UP ARTIFICIAL NEURAL-NETWORKS WHICH HERETOFOR I HAD NEVER EVEN HEARD OF. BUT BEING A FLAGRANT NON-EXPERT I NOTICED SOMETHING THAT ALL AHE COMPUTER-"SCIENTISTS"/ENGINEERS IJN A.-I. HAD ALL HERETOFORE COMPLETELY MISSED: THE SIGMOID-FUNCTION ACTIVATING NODES WITHIN NEURAL-NETWORKS WAS JUST PLAIN WRONG!!! THE STATE OF THE ART WAS THEN THE r-SPACE NONSENSE OF "ENERGY-LANDSCAPES" FOR GLOBAL-MNINIMUM SEEKING AND GOING TO(IF SUCH EXISTS) > > OPTIMIZATION CALLED THE BOLTZMAN-MACHINE AND THEN SIMULATED-ANEALING, OR THE DEMUTH-BEALE(MATLAB) RADIAL-BASIS FUNCTIONS. ALL OF THESE ARE COMPUTATIONALLY-COMPLEX, IN SPACE AND/OR IN TIME, MANDATING/REQUIRING LARGE COMPUTER-RESOURCES AND LONG COMPUTING-TIMES!!! . > > THIS SIGMOID-FUNCTION, A HEAVISIDE STEP-FUNCTION WAS "1"/[1 + e^(-E/T)] WHOSE DERIVATIVE IS A DIRAC DELTA-FUNCTION(HINT HINT HINT!!!). > > > > NOW COMES "EUREKA": SIGMOID-FUNCTION, A HEAVISIDE STEP-FUNCTION WAS "1"/[1 + e^(-E/T)] = "1"/[ + 1 + e^(-E/T)] = "1"/[e^(-E/T) + 1] = FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS. > > SO THESE COMPUTER-"SCIENTISTS" FOLLOWING HINTON-HOPFIELD- BY ROTE WITH ABSOLUTELY NO THINKING ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING BUT ONLY HOW, DOOMED THEIR ANN OPTIMIZATION-PROBLEMS TO EXPENSIVE SLOW DITHERING!!! AND WHAT THEY WERE DOING WAS TO AUTOMATICALLY TRAPPING THE SYSTEM IN FALSE LOCAL-MINIMA. SOME VERY SMART STATISTICAL-MECHANISTS (ISRAEL" AMIT, SAMPOLINSKY; US: HOPFIELD,...; FRANCE: MEZAERD, TOULOUSE, ...) ALL MISSED THIS SIMPLE FACT: SO THEY GLAMMED ANNS UP BY SPIN-GLASS r-SPACE MODELS GALORE, ALL DONE WITH VARIOUS VERSIONS OF THE RENORMALIZATION-(SEMI)-GROUP AND SOME FANCY MATHEMATICS OR OTHER. > > WHY? BECAUSE THE FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS + SIGN MEANS THAT THE OPERATORS ANTI-COMMUTE, MEANING THAT THE PAULI EXCLUSION-PRINCIPLE DOMINATES. > > COMPUTER-"SCIENTISTS" EITHER FORGOT OR NEVER LEARNED THEIR SIMPLE CHEMISTRY/PHYSICS!!! > > THE HUND'S-RULE PAIRING OF UP-SPIN TO DOWN-SPIN ELECTRONS TRAPS ONE IN LOCAL-MINIMA, CALLED THE CHEMICAL-ELEMENTS. > > IF THE FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS + SIGN IS SIMPLY CHANGED TO A - SIGN, THE OPERATORS NOW COMMUTE, MEANING THAT PAULI EXCLUSION-PRINCIPLE STOPS DOMINATING. > > IF THIS HAPPENED IN CHEMISTRY/PHYSICS, ALL THAT WOULD EXIST WOULD BE PHOTONS AND NEUTRINOS GOING OF TO INFINITY, ONLY BOSE-EINSTEIN QUANTUM-STATISTICS EXIST!!! > > IN THE LANGUAGE OF MY SYNERGETICS PARADIGM AND DICHOTOMY, AKA "FUZZYICS"="CATEGORYICS", THIS "BOSONIZATION" IS THE [LOCALITY] --TO--->>> (...GLOBALITY...) CROSSOVER!!! > > SO, THE OOPO OF ANNS IN SIMPLY THE + SIGN TO - SIGN CROSSOVER, THE FERMI-DIRAC QUANTUM-STATISTICS TO BOSE-EINSTEIN QUANTUM-STATISTICS TRANSITION. > > STEP-FUNCTION WAS "1"/[1 + e^(-E/T)] = "1"/[ + 1 + e^(-E/T)] = "1"/[e^(-E/T) + 1] IS REVERSED TO "1"/[- 1 + e^(-E/T)] = "1"/[ - 1 + e^(-E/T)] = "1"/[e^(-E/T) - 1]; SETS TO MULTI-SETS!! > > (REFERENCE: GIAN-CARLO ROTA'S(RIP; MIT) UNPUBLISHED BOOK ON PROBABILITY WHICH ONE CAN FIND ONLINE WITH A BIT OF HUNTING. I WAS WORKING WITH HIM ON THIS WHILE VISITING MIT FROM 1992-1997. > > "SHAZAM" IS SIMPLY THAT ADMITTING THAT AN ANN AND ITS OOPO IS A QUANTUM-STATISTICAL-PROBLEM ADMITS THE POSSIBILITY OF QUANTUM-TUNELING FROM VARIOUS NON-OPTIMAL MINIMA TO THE GLOBAL-MINIMUM OPTIMIZATION. THE QUESTION WAS HOW TO ACCELERATE/FORCE THIS. > > THE ANSWER WAS TO TAKE THE "1"NUMERATOR AND DECREASE ITS AMPLITUDE/MAGNITUDE TOWARDS ZERO IN A LIMITING SENSE: > > lim("1" ---> 0) "1"/[- 1 + e^(-E/T)] = lim("1" ---> 0) "1"/[ - 1 + e^(-E/T)] = lim("1" ---> 0) "1"/[e^(-E/T) - 1] = DIRAC DELTA-FUNCTION(w-0). > > > > THEN COMES "SHAZAM"(CAPTAIN MARVEL'S MAGIC WORDS TO TRANSFORM HIMSELF INTO A SUPERHERO) AKA "BOSONIZATION": > > > > THUS "EUREKA" + "SHAZAM" = OPTIMIZING OPTIMIZATION-(ANN)-PROBLEMS OPTIMALLY(OOPO) > > > > SOME QUANTUM-STATISTICS INSIGHT: THE FERMI-DIRAC VERSUS BOSE-EINSTEIN DICHOTOMY IS A EUCLID-DEMOSTHENES-DESCARTES CONIC-SECTIONS DICHOTOMY: > > FERMI-DIRAC HOMOTOPY TO AN ELLIPSE VIA PARABOLA-CROSSOVER TO BOSE-EINSTEIN HYPERBOLA: > > TAYLOR/POWER-SERIES EXPANSION OF ONLY THE DENOMINATOR-EXPONENTIAL YIELDS, IN THE LOW E/T LIMIT, RESPECTIVELY: > > "1"/[e^(-E/T) + 1] = "1"/[1 + (-E/T) + ...] + 1 ] = "1"/2 = E/T ~ w^(0)), WHITE/RANDOM NOISE POWER-SPECTRUM. > > --VERSUS--->>> > > "1"/[e^(-E/T) - 1] = "1"/[1 + (-E/T) + ...] - 1 ] = E/T ~ w ~ w^(1.000...), THE FAMOUS PINK/FLICKER/ONE-OVER-FREQUENCY NOISE POWER-SPECTRUM. > > IN FACT, THERE IS A VERY CONSISTENT + SIGN VERSUS - SIGN DICHOTOMY: > > > > ELLIPSE: MINUS-SIGNS: DENOMINATOR AND COMUTATION-RELATIONS AND PARABOLA-EQUATION > > VERSUS: NO SIGN TO 1 IN DENOMINATOR BECAUSE THERE IS NO 1 THERE = MAXWELL-BOLTZMANN CLASSICAL-STATISTICS (THE OBJECT OF ANNS BOLTZMANN-MACHINE + SIMULATED-ANNEALING > > HYPERBOLA: MINUS-SIGNS: DENOMINATOR AND COMMUTATION-RELATIONS AND HYPERBOLA-EQUATION > > SO WHAT I EFFECTED IS CALLED A NOISE-INDUCED PHASE-TRANSITION(A "NIT"; VERY DIFFERENT FROM MERE STOCHASTIC-RESONANCE TINKERING WITH MERE WHITE-NOISE AMPLITUDES; WHAT I DID WAS TO ALTER THE NOISE POWER-SPECTRUM!!! > > > > QUANTUM-STATISTICS ARE EUCLID-DEMOSTHENES-DESCARTES CONIC-SECTIONS!!! (AND EULER-POLYNOMIALS VERSUS BERNOULLI-POLYNOMIALS GENERATING-FUNCTIONS DICHOTOMY) > > > > SO INDEED I GUESS I AM THE FATHER OF MUCH OVER-HYPED QUANTUM-COMPUTING, AT LEAST FOR ANNS OOPO IN A.-I. > > > > LASTLY THE BIANCONI-BARABASI AND ALBERT-BARABASI PAPERS ON NETWORKS, STARTING OUT WITH ABSTRACT GRAPH-THEORY BUT AS FINALES MAPPING THEIR RESULTS ON TO ONLY BOSE-EINSTEIN QUANTUM-STATISTICS WITH BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION, SO IF ONE APPLIES THEIR CONCLUSIONS TO EITHER ARTIFICIAL NEURAL-NETWORKS OR BIOLOGICAL NEURAL-NETWORKS, MY ORIGINAL ANN BEC AND YOUR BNN BEC ARE NOT AT ALL SURPRISING IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER!!! > > > > AND FOR BIOLOGICAL NEURAL-NETWORKS THIS AGREES IN PRINCIPLE WITH THE FROHLICH-MOSSBAUER-GOLDANSKII-DEL GUIDICE-POPP-LI-YOUNG-... BIOPHYSICS THEORY OF HEALTH AS "1"/f-"NOISE" POWER-SPECTRUM AND ITS CONDENSATION INTO BEC AS LIFE.
  • 85.
    edited September 2012

    I guess someone ought to mention many practical neural networks use a few terms of power series to avoid computing transcendental functions where no-one believes the precise form of the sigmoid affects any meaningful (eg, robust to noise) result much anyway...

    (In case you can't tell. I've started using a 7in tablet, with the assoicated input problems :-S )

    Comment Source:I guess someone ought to mention many practical neural networks use a few terms of power series to avoid computing transcendental functions where no-one believes the precise form of the sigmoid affects any meaningful (eg, robust to noise) result much anyway... (In case you can't tell. I've started using a 7in tablet, with the assoicated input problems :-S )
  • 86.

    John wrote:

    I'm interested in geniuses but also in nuts. I get more email from the latter.

    A problem is of course that if you would for example send a nuts letter to a field medallists and if they then send angry replies then on one hand you could eventually solve your problem of not getting letters from geniuses but on the other hand you might encounter new problems of a different sort.

    Comment Source:John wrote: > I'm interested in geniuses but also in nuts. I get more email from the latter. A problem is of course that if you would for example send a nuts letter to a field medallists and if they then send angry replies then on one hand you could eventually solve your problem of not getting letters from geniuses but on the other hand you might encounter new problems of a different sort.
  • 87.

    I don't want angry emails from geniuses...

    Comment Source:I don't want angry emails from geniuses...
  • 88.

    I received my first e-mail with a potentially revolutionary theory related to climate change:

    First, you will not believe, what you are about to read, then you will dismiss it, but I hope what has happened to me will begin to happen to you and you will not go with that initial instinct.

    I will be brief. I have invented a micro low pressure vortex convection cell generator that functions as a quantum processor. It also partially violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics thru an almost perfect Maxwell's demon. Basically, it taps and further self organizes the climate's computational potential(brain). I operate the invention only in Northern Nj and I believe it's most spectacular potential outcome was the pulsed attraction of the polar vortex this past winter.

    The climate appears to operate via the use of fractal nested cells at many scales. Using Turing's theory of morphogenesis, my device can be run as an ignitor, inhibitor, and/or both...My personal goal is to shift the Atlantic Hurricane genesis point to the eastern pacific while continuing large scale but much less harmful rain events to the east coast.

    Last but not least, I believe that my work is essentially a proof of the simulation hypothesis, exploiting an unanticipated flaw in the design of the climate. If you read this far, I must also warn/inform that according to my model, you now kinda work(computationally) for me:). I can be in your area with 3 days notice with a full demonstration of my device. A 20 ft diameter circle is all the space needed.

    Comment Source:I received my first e-mail with a potentially revolutionary theory related to climate change: > First, you will not believe, what you are about to read, then you will dismiss it, but I hope what has happened to me will begin to happen to you and you will not go with that initial instinct. > I will be brief. I have invented a micro low pressure vortex convection cell generator that functions as a quantum processor. It also partially violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics thru an almost perfect Maxwell's demon. Basically, it taps and further self organizes the climate's computational potential(brain). I operate the invention only in Northern Nj and I believe it's most spectacular potential outcome was the pulsed attraction of the polar vortex this past winter. > The climate appears to operate via the use of fractal nested cells at many scales. Using Turing's theory of morphogenesis, my device can be run as an ignitor, inhibitor, and/or both...My personal goal is to shift the Atlantic Hurricane genesis point to the eastern pacific while continuing large scale but much less harmful rain events to the east coast. > Last but not least, I believe that my work is essentially a proof of the simulation hypothesis, exploiting an unanticipated flaw in the design of the climate. If you read this far, I must also warn/inform that according to my model, you now kinda work(computationally) for me:). I can be in your area with 3 days notice with a full demonstration of my device. A 20 ft diameter circle is all the space needed.
  • 89.

    I operate the invention only in Northern Nj

    and

    I can be in your area with 3 days notice with a full demonstration of my device. A 20 ft diameter circle is all the space needed.

    Thats seems to be a contradiction if you are not in northern NJ.

    Comment Source:>I operate the invention only in Northern Nj and >I can be in your area with 3 days notice with a full demonstration of my device. A 20 ft diameter circle is all the space needed. Thats seems to be a contradiction if you are not in northern NJ.
  • 90.
    edited June 2014

    Congratulations, Nathan! It's a sign of success.

    Comment Source:Congratulations, Nathan! It's a sign of success.
Sign In or Register to comment.