A
Anonymous
Guest
To all:
In its role, at the edge of accepted or "traditional" science, or even beyond it, Forteanism has a purpose of looking at phenomena those in the "regular" scientific seem almost terrified to grant the dignity of inquiry. This includes, as well, considerations and explanations, even for those things already, supposedly, "explored", that may answer questions better than "the party line" does.
Toward this end, then, a question: Just what is a "natural law"?
The literature is full of "laws of physics", from Newton's Laws of Motion, to Maxwell's Equations, to Conservation of Energy, to the Laws of Thermodynamics, to Conservation of Electric Charge, and so on. Each is represented as unquestioned and unquestionable, and frequently invoked when legitimate or spurious attempts at "explanations" are attempted.
But, what is a "natural law"?
What makes it work?
What makes a particle of matter know how much to attract another particle, through gravity?
If it is the warping of space that produces gravity, how does the particle know how much to warp space?
How do charged particles know how much to attract or repel others?
Why would a photon of a little over 1.022 MeV energy produce only an electron-positron pair? Why not four smaller particles? Or six? How can something supposedly as simple as a photon packet of energy, with, presumably, no internal structure, contain the information to precisely produce the right number and charge of particles, at exactly the right energies?
When a photon produces matter, what forces it to produce two opposing charges? Why doesn't it produce only one charged particle, positive or negative?
Whjy do leptons only have cartain masses? Why can't something that acts like a lepton - being an intermediary in spontaneous radioactive decay - have some mass other than those already established?
Why are all charges some integer multiple of the charge on a quark? Why, apparently, can't something have some charge other than that?
What forces all these things to be this way?
And, among other things, how does it manage to do it everywhere, in every instance, apparently without fail?
What omnipresent, universally consistent influence is there that causes particles to behave exactly the same, under all circumstances? And why don't we see it in action? We see the "laws" always working out, supposedly, exactly the same, everywhere, but this "force" that imposes these "laws" is always, apparently, invisible. At least, we don't see some kind of nebulous calculator figuring out what energy distribution should exist, in an interaction, then some kind of "rays" putting this distribution into motion?
The most that even "traditional" science has to say about this, evidently, is: "That's the way it is!"
They'll crucify religion on the cross of "faith", yet not even get as far as the spiritual in explaining, or even trying to explain, what is happening!
In the early days of personal computing, getting this close to the roots of actions was called "getting down to the metal", meaning tapping the "burned in", unchangeable bases for all processing in a machine. This, however, seems an uneasy place for "traditional" science. Largely because, at this level, things become far less "traditional"!
Even the non-enigmatic aspects of physics - beyond the faster than light ability of particles to interchange information about their states, or the ability of particles to "tunnel" through supposedly impassable fields - can contain aspects beyond the ability of "traditional" scientists to explain, and, therefore, their willingness to try!
Consider, for example, something as theoretically simple as light.
In "traditional" science, light is represented as a travelling combination of a varying electric and a varying magnetic field, at right angles to each other. As you may know, as electric fields change, they give rise to magnetic fields, at right angles to them. As magnetic fields change, they produce varying electric fields, at right angles to them. The varying electric field of a light wave gives rise to the varying magnetic field, with which it is paired. But, at the same time, the alternating magnetic field, produces the varying electrostatic field! The changing electric field gives rise to the magnetic field, whose variations produce the changing electric field, that is producing the changing magnetic field!
That, in "traditional" science is the photon; two disembodied fields, each giving rise to the other, that, in turn, gives rise to it!
In "traditional" science, the photon is the chicken and the egg!
In "traditional" science, all fields have to be located in emitting matter. These fields are free flowing, through space. What's more, they are in the apparently delicate position of giving rise to the influence that, in its turn, gives rise to them! They don't have the supposedly "independent" existence of matter, which doesn't seem to need to give rise to an effect, that, subsequently, gives rise to it!
What, then, is "holding" the disembodied fields, as they move through space? Which gives rise to which, when the photon originates, to start the process going? Or are they always giving rise to each other, but unseen, and, then, "breaking off" from some huge "pool", when photons are produced? And, if so, how did that begin?
And that's only in the area of photons!
What does "shape" energy into the forms it takes? And why only in those particular sizes, masses and charges? If we wished something that was obviously ever present, to handle every single situation, we could suggest it is space-time, for example. Could space-time, somehow, "wrap around" energy, forcing it into a particular mass form? And, if so, why? What delimits space-time into only certain forms? And how does it "wrap around" energy, producing certain types of matter?
Don't look to "traditional" science for answers. For all their vaunted "expertise", they don't even, evidently, try to get this close "to the metal"! This seems an area for cogent suggestions by those who don't think that everything can be explained by looking at the operating of a car motor! The "essence", beyond easy comparison to any "traditional" science models, or intuitive comparisons to "the everyday world", may require utterly non-traditional considerations!
This invites any and all such unorthodox suggestions to explain what "traditional" science, so far, seems determined to avoid trying to explain!
Julian Penrod
In its role, at the edge of accepted or "traditional" science, or even beyond it, Forteanism has a purpose of looking at phenomena those in the "regular" scientific seem almost terrified to grant the dignity of inquiry. This includes, as well, considerations and explanations, even for those things already, supposedly, "explored", that may answer questions better than "the party line" does.
Toward this end, then, a question: Just what is a "natural law"?
The literature is full of "laws of physics", from Newton's Laws of Motion, to Maxwell's Equations, to Conservation of Energy, to the Laws of Thermodynamics, to Conservation of Electric Charge, and so on. Each is represented as unquestioned and unquestionable, and frequently invoked when legitimate or spurious attempts at "explanations" are attempted.
But, what is a "natural law"?
What makes it work?
What makes a particle of matter know how much to attract another particle, through gravity?
If it is the warping of space that produces gravity, how does the particle know how much to warp space?
How do charged particles know how much to attract or repel others?
Why would a photon of a little over 1.022 MeV energy produce only an electron-positron pair? Why not four smaller particles? Or six? How can something supposedly as simple as a photon packet of energy, with, presumably, no internal structure, contain the information to precisely produce the right number and charge of particles, at exactly the right energies?
When a photon produces matter, what forces it to produce two opposing charges? Why doesn't it produce only one charged particle, positive or negative?
Whjy do leptons only have cartain masses? Why can't something that acts like a lepton - being an intermediary in spontaneous radioactive decay - have some mass other than those already established?
Why are all charges some integer multiple of the charge on a quark? Why, apparently, can't something have some charge other than that?
What forces all these things to be this way?
And, among other things, how does it manage to do it everywhere, in every instance, apparently without fail?
What omnipresent, universally consistent influence is there that causes particles to behave exactly the same, under all circumstances? And why don't we see it in action? We see the "laws" always working out, supposedly, exactly the same, everywhere, but this "force" that imposes these "laws" is always, apparently, invisible. At least, we don't see some kind of nebulous calculator figuring out what energy distribution should exist, in an interaction, then some kind of "rays" putting this distribution into motion?
The most that even "traditional" science has to say about this, evidently, is: "That's the way it is!"
They'll crucify religion on the cross of "faith", yet not even get as far as the spiritual in explaining, or even trying to explain, what is happening!
In the early days of personal computing, getting this close to the roots of actions was called "getting down to the metal", meaning tapping the "burned in", unchangeable bases for all processing in a machine. This, however, seems an uneasy place for "traditional" science. Largely because, at this level, things become far less "traditional"!
Even the non-enigmatic aspects of physics - beyond the faster than light ability of particles to interchange information about their states, or the ability of particles to "tunnel" through supposedly impassable fields - can contain aspects beyond the ability of "traditional" scientists to explain, and, therefore, their willingness to try!
Consider, for example, something as theoretically simple as light.
In "traditional" science, light is represented as a travelling combination of a varying electric and a varying magnetic field, at right angles to each other. As you may know, as electric fields change, they give rise to magnetic fields, at right angles to them. As magnetic fields change, they produce varying electric fields, at right angles to them. The varying electric field of a light wave gives rise to the varying magnetic field, with which it is paired. But, at the same time, the alternating magnetic field, produces the varying electrostatic field! The changing electric field gives rise to the magnetic field, whose variations produce the changing electric field, that is producing the changing magnetic field!
That, in "traditional" science is the photon; two disembodied fields, each giving rise to the other, that, in turn, gives rise to it!
In "traditional" science, the photon is the chicken and the egg!
In "traditional" science, all fields have to be located in emitting matter. These fields are free flowing, through space. What's more, they are in the apparently delicate position of giving rise to the influence that, in its turn, gives rise to them! They don't have the supposedly "independent" existence of matter, which doesn't seem to need to give rise to an effect, that, subsequently, gives rise to it!
What, then, is "holding" the disembodied fields, as they move through space? Which gives rise to which, when the photon originates, to start the process going? Or are they always giving rise to each other, but unseen, and, then, "breaking off" from some huge "pool", when photons are produced? And, if so, how did that begin?
And that's only in the area of photons!
What does "shape" energy into the forms it takes? And why only in those particular sizes, masses and charges? If we wished something that was obviously ever present, to handle every single situation, we could suggest it is space-time, for example. Could space-time, somehow, "wrap around" energy, forcing it into a particular mass form? And, if so, why? What delimits space-time into only certain forms? And how does it "wrap around" energy, producing certain types of matter?
Don't look to "traditional" science for answers. For all their vaunted "expertise", they don't even, evidently, try to get this close "to the metal"! This seems an area for cogent suggestions by those who don't think that everything can be explained by looking at the operating of a car motor! The "essence", beyond easy comparison to any "traditional" science models, or intuitive comparisons to "the everyday world", may require utterly non-traditional considerations!
This invites any and all such unorthodox suggestions to explain what "traditional" science, so far, seems determined to avoid trying to explain!
Julian Penrod
