• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Scientific Publications

Bogdanov Affair
The Bogdanov Affair is an academic dispute regarding the legitimacy of a series of theoretical physics papers written by French twins Igor and Grichka Bogdanov (alternately spelt Bogdanoff). These papers were published in reputable scientific journals, and were alleged by their authors to culminate in a proposed theory for describing what occurred at the Big Bang. The controversy started in 2002 when rumors spread on Usenet newsgroups that the work was a deliberate hoax intended to target weaknesses in the peer review system employed by the physics community to select papers for publication in academic journals. While the Bogdanov brothers continue to defend the veracity of their work, the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) issued a report concluding that “la valeur de ce travail est nulle” ("the value of this work is nil").[1] Some physicists have also treated this as evidence of the fallibility inherent within the peer review system. The debate over whether the work represented a contribution to physics, or instead was meaningless, spread from Usenet to many other Internet forums, including the blogs of notable physicists. The ensuing dispute received considerable coverage in the mainstream media. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair
 
Ghostisfort said:
Dismissed is fired sacked or sent away. Do you have a literacy problem?

No - are you trying to start a flame war (as that is a no-no here)?

I don't recall saying that Crookes would be dismissed, yet more words put into my mouth, I said he would be excluded, which is a quite different word. Excluded in the sense that he would not be there today, due to his lack of qualification.

I didn't say that you'd said he'd been dismissed. You need to read my posts more carefully, rather that assuming that you don't understand them because you think I have a 'literacy problem' ;)
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
Dismissed is fired sacked or sent away. Do you have a literacy problem?

No - are you trying to start a flame war (as that is a no-no here)?

I don't recall saying that Crookes would be dismissed, yet more words put into my mouth, I said he would be excluded, which is a quite different word. Excluded in the sense that he would not be there today, due to his lack of qualification.

I didn't say that you'd said he'd been dismissed. You need to read my posts more carefully, rather that assuming that you don't understand them because you think I have a 'literacy problem' ;)

I am sympathetic to literacy problems, as I said in an earlier post, I worked in education and dyslexia was quite common.
I rarely found this to be connected to low intelligence, but I suppose a combination of the two is not impossible.
 
:roll: Neither problems apply to me. To imply such things as an answer to any criticisms of your posts is really not kosher here.
 
Jerry_B said:
:roll: Neither problems apply to me. To imply such things as an answer to any criticisms of your posts is really not kosher here.
It's paranoia, I wouldn't dream of suggesting such things about you.
On the contrary, among teaching staff, I found the biggest problem was with authoritarianism. The insistence that what is taught is an absolute to be adhered-to, to the exclusion of all else - sudden, illogical anger at any deviation from the accepted norm. This is a self preservation stratagem that spills over into science and that's what my posts are about.

Richard Dawkins is an example of this very same authoritarian tendency. His abandonment of logic is typical of the sceptical mind. Everything goes out of the window when the paradigm is challenged. Logic, rationality, and even common sense are all victims to the chosen theory.
Basically, it's about not being able to think for oneself.
 
Academia, Acadème, or the Academy are the common terms for the community of students and scholars engaged in higher education and research...
...An academic is a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university, college, or similar institution in post-secondary (tertiary) education. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academia
This is where the problem lies. There is no demarcation line between learning and science. The idea that certain facts must be learned is acceptable for students, but when this rule is also absorbed into science and facts become absolutes, the science is dead in the water.
Science is not about teaching, it's supposed to be about discovery and you can't teach anyone to discover, only about other peoples past discoveries - which is history.
Discovery is a gift of the imagination and imagination is discouraged and replaced with history.

Example: Here is the history of the discovery of powered flight.
Question: How did the Wright's manage to do this when science had failed?
Answer: By ignoring science and the work of everyone who had failed in the past. By ignoring sceptical detractors and those who said it could not be done.
 
“Most scientific papers are probably wrong” – New Scientist

20 June 2010

by Fabius Maximus

Summary: Yes, that is the conclusion from a remarkably large body of research. Bad news for those who consider science a religion (at least when it agrees with their beliefs).

One of the great oddities of the public (i.e., among lay people) discussion of global warming is the love-hate attitude of many warmists to science. Scientists are authorities, not be be questioned — except when they disagree with anthropogenic global warming. Then they’re fallible, often ignorant fools (a frequent trope in the FM comments section). This results from a near-total ignorance of the history and philosophy (e.g, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn) of science. And ignorance of the research by scientists about science.

This post looks at one example. It’s about medical research. But then medical research has tighter controls than found in most of the physical sciences. For a summary of their findings see “Most scientific papers are probably wrong“, Kurt Kleiner, New Scientist, 30 August 2005 — Opening:

Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis. Assuming that the new paper is itself correct, problems with experimental and statistical methods mean that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper are true.

John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, says that small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias, and selective reporting and other problems combine to make most research findings false. But even large, well-designed studies are not always right, meaning that scientists and the public have to be wary of reported findings. “We should accept that most research findings will be refuted. Some will be replicated and validated. The replication process is more important than the first discovery,” Ioannidis says.

In the paper, Ioannidis does not show that any particular findings are false. Instead, he shows statistically how the many obstacles to getting research findings right combine to make most published research wrong.

The article: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False“, John P. A. Ioannidis, Public Library of Science Medicine, 30 August 2005 — Abstract:

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when

the studies conducted in a field are smaller;
when effect sizes are smaller;
when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships;
where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes;
when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and
when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance.

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2010/06/20/18128/
 
Ghostisfort said:
On the contrary, among teaching staff, I found the biggest problem was with authoritarianism. The insistence that what is taught is an absolute to be adhered-to, to the exclusion of all else - sudden, illogical anger at any deviation from the accepted norm. This is a self preservation stratagem that spills over into science and that's what my posts are about.

Is this an example of the people that taught you?

Richard Dawkins is an example of this very same authoritarian tendency. His abandonment of logic is typical of the sceptical mind. Everything goes out of the window when the paradigm is challenged. Logic, rationality, and even common sense are all victims to the chosen theory.
Basically, it's about not being able to think for oneself.

Well, perhaps not. The sceptical mind has many, many forms - Dawkins is just one individual and you shouldn't take his reaction to any given subject as the typical approach. Try not to paste everyone with the same very broad brush.
 
Jerry_B said:
Is this an example of the people that taught you?
Yes, it is.
I recall our science teacher in the 50's, Mr. Genens, telling us that as a was a scientist, he was able to answer any question - they were as bad then as now.
I asked him how a transistor worked; remember, they had then only recently been released to the public at the time, and he said, "Why the bloody hell don't you start thinking for yourself", and so I did and I never looked back. The hubris 'Hoist on its own petard', so to speak.

Richard Dawkins is an example of this very same authoritarian tendency. His abandonment of logic is typical of the sceptical mind. Everything goes out of the window when the paradigm is challenged. Logic, rationality, and even common sense are all victims to the chosen theory.
Basically, it's about not being able to think for oneself.

Well, perhaps not. The sceptical mind has many, many forms - Dawkins is just one individual and you shouldn't take his reaction to any given subject as the typical approach. Try not to paste everyone with the same very broad brush.
The 'sceptical mind' is selective in what it is sceptical about. When the light of scepticism never falls on science it cannot be considered to be truly sceptical. I challenge you to point to a popular sceptic who has done so.

Apart from scientists, politicians, car salesmen and bankers, I don't think I'm sceptical about anything. The more bizarre just goes on a back burner until more data is available. This is how I find-out about Mother Nature.
 
Ghostisfort said:
I recall our science teacher in the 50's, Mr. Genens, telling us that as a was a scientist, he was able to answer any question - they were as bad then as now.

But that's a rather sweeping assumption. If I, for example, were to say that my science teachers were good, does that mean that all scientists and scientific academics are good? No. So I think it's rather pointless to say that teachers are are still somehow bad because you had some bad ones - or I had some that were good, for that matter. It's better to say that there are good and bad ones. With you it seems possible that a bad teacher made you cynical about science.

The 'sceptical mind' is selective in what it is sceptical about. When the light of scepticism never falls on science it cannot be considered to be truly sceptical. I challenge you to point to a popular sceptic who has done so.

So you're saying that scientists aren't sceptical of science or other scientists? That they accept various things within that remit without question?
 
Ghostisfort said:
Scientists are expected to be atheists in support of the materialistic philosophy of science. The fact that some scientists claim to be Christian or whatever makes no difference to this fact. Some are tolerated and some are not...most have career problems if they insist on publicising their beliefs.

Bollocks. Bollocks. Bollocks on stilts.

You don't meet many scientists, do you?

Mike Taylor. Peter Dodson. Steve Godfrey. There are three very big names in the field of paeleontology who are all extremely devout Anglican, Catholic and Evangelical Christians respectively. who are very very open about their faith and very successful in their careers.

Even the young earth creationist who spoke at SVP 2005 was well received because his research was actually rigorous and correct, even though is views on the age of the earth are at odds with the evidence.

Religious belief does not harm a scientist's career one iota unless they discount the evidence of experiment and observation because a book written by shepherds several thousand years ago has a vague wishy-washy and self-contradictory and poorly translated explanation.
 
lawofnations said:
Ghostisfort said:
Scientists are expected to be atheists in support of the materialistic philosophy of science. The fact that some scientists claim to be Christian or whatever makes no difference to this fact. Some are tolerated and some are not...most have career problems if they insist on publicising their beliefs.

Bollocks. Bollocks. Bollocks on stilts.

You don't meet many scientists, do you?

Mike Taylor. Peter Dodson. Steve Godfrey. There are three very big names in the field of paeleontology who are all extremely devout Anglican, Catholic and Evangelical Christians respectively. who are very very open about their faith and very successful in their careers.

Even the young earth creationist who spoke at SVP 2005 was well received because his research was actually rigorous and correct, even though is views on the age of the earth are at odds with the evidence.

Religious belief does not harm a scientist's career one iota unless they discount the evidence of experiment and observation because a book written by shepherds several thousand years ago has a vague wishy-washy and self-contradictory and poorly translated explanation.
I love this post.

It would seem that to answer this post I would have to do a statistical analysis of the careers of all scientists who are also Christians. But no, I don't have to prove that science is atheistic, or that it expects scientists to follow suit, it does that for itself.

The scientific creation myth says that all things were created by the Big Bang from nothing and completely at random with no help from a deity. All scientists are expected to accept this tenet.

Biologoical evolution tells us that the biosphere is the result of random mutations and every scientist is expected to go along with this as it's a central tenet of science.

Compare: John.1
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

This is the central dogma of all Christianity and somewhat at odds with science? It is "a book written by shepherds several thousand years ago"
A scientist who insists on the truth of scripture is not going to last long in science as he must insist that science is wrong about things that are basic to him. The scientists you mention must have kept their opinions to themselves or alternately they are not serious Christians
How anyone manages to reconcile the two is a mystery to me?

In addition, he must concede that god reveals his secrets of nature, only to those who don't believe he exists. This is illogical.

We are told regularly, by such as Dawkins and Hawking (who is plugging his latest book on the subject as we write) and many other loud voices of science that there is no god. It cannot be denied by any but the most naive that science is materialistic, atheistic in its fundamental qualities and in practice.
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
I recall our science teacher in the 50's, Mr. Genens, telling us that as a was a scientist, he was able to answer any question - they were as bad then as now.

But that's a rather sweeping assumption. If I, for example, were to say that my science teachers were good, does that mean that all scientists and scientific academics are good? No. So I think it's rather pointless to say that teachers are are still somehow bad because you had some bad ones - or I had some that were good, for that matter. It's better to say that there are good and bad ones. With you it seems possible that a bad teacher made you cynical about science.

The 'sceptical mind' is selective in what it is sceptical about. When the light of scepticism never falls on science it cannot be considered to be truly sceptical. I challenge you to point to a popular sceptic who has done so.
So you're saying that scientists aren't sceptical of science or other scientists? That they accept various things within that remit without question?
Jerry_B
Do you recall asking me this question?
"Is this an example of the people that taught you?".
I answered your question and all of what you have added on to it is twaddle - not about the question I answered. No sweeping assumptions.
So you're saying that scientists aren't sceptical of science or other scientists? That they accept various things within that remit without question?
If you look at the previous post you will see that I said that no scientist will question such things as the Big Bang and Evolution, which is not quite the same. Scientists do use a pseudo scepticism that I have already covered in these threads that it seems you don't bother to read. They reject everything not already covered by a theory. What this does in effect is to ensure that there are no more theories. It's a circular process where as I pointed out in another thread: An inventor finds a new energy source and tries to market his discovery. The manufacturer covers his back-side by asking the experts (usually physicists) and the experts say no, it has no theory. It matters not if the idea works, it will be rejected. And by this means we, the taxpayer, who often pay the salaries of physicists, are robbed of useful technology.
 
Ghostisfort said:
I answered your question and all of what you have added on to it is twaddle - not about the question I answered. No sweeping assumptions.

I don't see any reason for you to start saying anything I post is 'twaddle', thanks very much. You said that 'they were as bad then as now' - which is a sweeping assumption. You're branding all scientists because of one example (the one that taught you).

If you look at the previous post you will see that I said that no scientist will question such things as the Big Bang and Evolution, which is not quite the same.

Odd then that awhile back there was an episode of the BBC's Horizon programme in which the Big Bang was being questioned by scientists. Their point being that there was something before it. And they weren't some maverick, excluded types either.

I think you're far too quick to write off things in a very sweeping way, and that you do this with both science and scientists, as well as posters here. Anyone who doesn't accept your take on things is therefore dismissed.
 
Jerry_B said:
Ghostisfort said:
I answered your question and all of what you have added on to it is twaddle - not about the question I answered. No sweeping assumptions.

I don't see any reason for you to start saying anything I post is 'twaddle', thanks very much. You said that 'they were as bad then as now' - which is a sweeping assumption. You're branding all scientists because of one example (the one that taught you).

If you look at the previous post you will see that I said that no scientist will question such things as the Big Bang and Evolution, which is not quite the same.

Odd then that awhile back there was an episode of the BBC's Horizon programme in which the Big Bang was being questioned by scientists. Their point being that there was something before it. And they weren't some maverick, excluded types either.

I think you're far too quick to write off things in a very sweeping way, and that you do this with both science and scientists, as well as posters here. Anyone who doesn't accept your take on things is therefore dismissed.
I apologise for the word twaddle, I was getting grief from another area while trying to write your reply.
I have a large amount of evidence that would require a book to do justice and I can only give a few examples on this thread. For example: when discussing radiometric dating, I did not mention that fossil bearing rocks cannot be dated by any radiometric means because the are sedimentary. And so again we are back to the rocks dated by fossils and fossils dated by rocks rotation.
There's an article on this in FT 66 if anyone else has them going that far back.

Discussions on the Big Bang have been going-on since Fred Hoyle proposed the Steady-State theory and so this is not new. For all of that nothing ever changes.
The theory was one alternative to the Big Bang which agreed with key observations of the day, namely Hubble's red shift observations, and Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. Ironically, he is responsible for coining the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast at 1830 GMT on 28 March 1949. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle ... e_Big_Bang
It's not about what is said, it's about what gets written in text books and taught to students.
 
"The likelihood (probability) of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Sir Fredrick Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984), p. 148.
You see, there are a few scientists that I like and Hoyle was one of them.

Never on British TV, has there been a program that examines the problems associated with the theory of biological evolution.
 
Ghostisfort said:
Discussions on the Big Bang have been going-on since Fred Hoyle proposed the Steady-State theory and so this is not new. For all of that nothing ever changes.

The theories and others associated with the subject are still on-going. It may be a bit much to expect some sort of sweeping change overnight. Even ideas about how life started on Earth are on-going in terms of ideas. Hoyle's stuff is interesting, but after all it is just another theory - opinion even. Especially the stuff about 'purposeful intelligence' - nice idea, but where's the evidence?

I think you tend to see science as being some monumental edifice impervious to discussion. IMHO, this is not the case.
 
The only thing I see within academic science with any clarity is people like yourself impervious to any concept of change in an authoritarian and anachronistic system that should have gone down with the Titanic.
"Just another theory" is rich, when you consider that the whole of Einsteinian physics is theory and the whole of cosmology is based on this same pure theory.
Why would one theory be more acceptable that another? This kind of selective reasoning is typical of the confusion created to keep scientists in a position of mysticism that is meant to baffle critics.

I'm not sure if you're unable to understand this, or unwilling to admit that something like this may be true. Or maybe you have taken on science as a religion and your position is one of pure faith.
Whatever the reason: to let a body of human endeavour continue its course without criticism or examination from outside is begging for corruption. History is replete with examples of tyrants who found themselves in just this position. Human nature does the rest. Or, are scientists immune to natural human temptations?

Where is the official forum for public criticism of science?
 
Well, for one you really are assuming far too much about my outlook on this, let alone how my career has anything to do with it (which it doesn't), let alone how academia works.

It is going to be rather pointless trying to have a discussion with you when your views are just as apparently fixed as those you allege are 'fixed' in their outlook.

People who disagree with you are not by default cheerleaders for the team you are in opposition to/find fault with. If you take this stance, you will be joining a rather large group of people who've come to these fourms in the past with a pet theory/outlook/peeve and have then start lashing out when they find that people question them or don't agree with them. Rather than be offended by your suggestion that I'm not very bright and that science is my religion, I'm going to assume that you are edging slowly into this group - until such time you choose to be more civil and balanced in your approach.
 
"There is not a crime, there is not a dodge,
there is not a trick, there is not a swindle,
there is not a vice which does not live by secrecy.
Get these things out in the open, describe them,
attack them, ridicule them in the press, and sooner
or later public opinion will sweep them away."
Joseph Pulitzer ;)
 
Ghostisfort said:
Why would one theory be more acceptable that another?
You come on here, lecturing us on what is wrong with science, and yet you clearly don't understand anything about it, as your question illustrates.

You never listen to what is said to you, so I for one refuse to enter into further dialogue until you're prepared to adopt a more open attitude.
 
Consensus Universe
RAPPOPORT INTERVIEWS TESLA
JUNE 9, 2011.

Bringing back Nikola Tesla (1856-1943), the famous inventor, for an encore involved a few emails to Limbo, where he is continuing his experiments.

I expected the conversation would be like pulling teeth. You know, taciturn, dour, bitter. All that. But happily, it wasn't the case. As with Orson Welles, another one of my interviewees, I was surprised to find that Tesla shares many of my views.

Q: How's it going?

A: Fairly well, Jon. Working hard as always.

Q: Anything new to report?

A: Sure. Turns out the universe is an illusion, when you drill down far enough. And I have.

Q: Illusion in what sense?

A: It's too real.

Q: Excuse me?

A: You have to be suspicious when things get too real, when you can't wave a hand and make an ashtray on a table disappear. Look for a con. See?

Q: Actually, I think I might.

A: For a long time, I was working to tap into inherent energies in the Earth, in space, and I solved all that. I have the inventions built now, fully functioning. It's in the bag. You reached me at an opportune time, because I've got a guy who's handling the promotion on it. All open source. He'll be distributing complete blueprints to several planets, actually. Earth included, of course. But then I needed something new to do, so I started applying high power resolution to sub-atomic phenomena, and I came up with a few exciting wrinkles.

Q: Let's hear about that.

A: Let me give it to you as a metaphor. Because so many things do, in fact, turn out to be metaphors. Anyway, you travel far enough into micro-micro landscapes, and you come across a man holding up a sign that says: THIS IS REAL. See what I mean? It's a form of hypnosis. THIS IS REAL. THIS IS THE MOST REAL IT GETS. So you have to think somebody is pulling the wool over your eyes.

Q: It's a scam.

A: Full scam.

Q: And who is this man with the sign?

A: Just a prop. Depending on what angle you're looking at him from, he appears in different guises. That's where cultural programming comes in. Whoever a particular culture would consider the most elevated authority figure, that's who this man with the sign looks like.

Q: Who does he look like to you?

A: Donald Duck. But that's because I've developed a bit of a sense of humor. It was a long time coming. You remember a guy named Lenny Bruce?

Q: Sure.

A: Well, Lenny and I have been hanging out. He's kicked his habit, and he's clean. But he's still the same basic Lenny.

Q: I would never have expected...

A: I know. Weird, isn't it? He's something. Anyway, what I'm saying is, physical reality, this whole universe, is a...

Q: Virtual reality.

A: Not exactly. No. It's constructed as a kingdom might be, except there is no king. So the natural inference is, there IS a king. But no, there isn't.

Q: Rather confusing.

A: Sure. The whole hierarchy of species, for example. From simple to complex. The progression from very tiny particles to whole galaxies. It looks organized. And it is. But that's a feint. It's a diversion in a shell game. A lot of effort was put into making the universe seem real in an imposing way. But as I said, this is a clue. When someone goes around pounding his chest all the time and telling you who he is, you begin to wonder what's going on behind the facade. On Earth, people live in a very provincial monopoly in which, for instance, energy is controlled by a small number of people-so it's natural pioneers would look for other sources of energy. As I did. And I found them in abundance. There never was and never will be a scarcity, unless it's imposed. But that's just the beginning of a much larger story. From my perspective now, when I look at physical reality, I see facades.

Q: Stage flats.

A: A man running around with a sign that says THIS IS REAL.

Q: Can you do something with that? I mean, can you invent something that makes use of that?

A: An interesting question. You can always do something with something. Do you know? You can guide it, expand it, constrict it, you can work it like salt-water taffy. But when you're basically dealing with nothing, it's different.

Q: Nothing?

A: If you have facades, what's in back of them? Nothing. The show's not going on back there.

Q: I see.

A: Nevertheless, I wanted to explore that.

Q: Explore nothing.

A: Sure. Wouldn't you?

Q: I guess so.

A: It's a challenge. What do you do with nothing? I wish more philosophers and scientists had asked that question.

Q: You don't mean a vacuum.

A: A vacuum sucks in matter and energy. Nothing doesn't do that.

Q: What's it like being in nothing?

A: Restful.

Q: Is nothing a space?

A: No.

Q: Then how do you describe it?

A: Lenny said it was like a long moment when his mother stopped talking at him.

Q: If it isn't space, how do you move around in it?

A: Turns out you can move around in no-space. You're in a void. What was the other thing Lenny said about the void? It's like Alzheimer's, except your mind is very clear and you remember everything.

Q: Can you use it?

A: Well, as an inventor, naturally I was interested in the possibility. It took me a while, but I did come up with what I call the physics of potential. Nothing happens, but anything and everything could happen. If you took the moment before a thought occurs, and expanded it to infinity, what would you have? You'd have consciousness of possibility. You'd have a moment with no end to consider whatever you wanted to consider. A plan, an idea, a design, an invention, a work of art, an action. I was already acquainted with this, in a much more limited sense, because as you probably know, I was able to visualize a new invention as a completely finished entity before I ever laid a finger on materials and built it.

Q: The physics of potential.

A: The universe is, from this perspective, the creation of overall amnesia.

Q: People might have trouble understanding that.

A: I've never waited for people to catch up to me. They have to grapple with what I've done. Most of the time, they don't want to. So why should I be concerned? When you leave the infinite moment of potential, and let's say you make a universe, you develop amnesia about what you left behind, which is that nothing where it all started.

Q: You're not just talking semantics.

A: No, this is very real. The void is the absence of creating. It's not a thing. It's just a word you apply to not creating. You don't create ANYTHING. You stop because you want to. And when you do that, you have an energy potential that is infinite. Here's another metaphor. The universe you're living in is a cartoon. You're in a consensus reconstituted can of orange juice.

Q: And what does Lenny call that?

A: The Big Bong.

Q: Why do we buy the idea that the physical universe is so real? Why don't we see the little man with the sign?

A: Because you want real. Real is a very interesting experience. For a while. If you ran around pulling out a chunk of sky here and a chunk of sky there, the illusion would become obvious. So you institute laws that connect everything together-or seem to. If you pull out a chunk of sky you get a huge explosion and things go haywire. At least, that's what you firmly believe. Actually, you can remove things and nothing happens. You just have a steady hole. But everyone denies that.

Q: You mean there is a conspiracy to maintain the basic laws of physics?

A: Yes. A consensus.

Q: You destroyed a consensus when you found a way to tap into unlimited energy and send it to people all over the world.

A: No. I destroyed the monopoly of a few men.

Q: Which is why they cut you off.

A: They told themselves a little story. That I was crazy. Of course, they really knew why they shut off my funding.

Q: So anyone can create a universe.

A: Of course. That's obvious. Just as there is no scarcity of energy, there is no scarcity of universes. It's a walk in the park. But One Universe is a kind of religion. I had inklings of that while I was doing my energy experiments on Earth. But now I see the fuller picture. People think they're free from the demented ideas of religions. But they have their own. Universe. One Universe. And it's a humdinger. One reason it works so well is there is no visible church. Universe appears to be neutral. Dogma isn't labeled dogma.

Q: What's it like seeing all sorts of other universes and being able to travel to them?

A: It's quite enjoyable. I would say relaxed. You give up this whole ridiculous idea of entropy, according to which usable energy is diminishing. But people want entropy. They want that idea that existence is limited. Like I say, it's a religion. If a person thinks he's limited, then he wants to posit an energy supply that's limited.

Q: You always did opt for abundance.

A: Why shouldn't I? It's a better concept than scarcity. It's a key in the door that opens out into infinity. Infinities, actually. For the intellectuals out there-there are supposed to be more possible moves in chess than the number of quarks in the universe. So imagine that a chess game could begin with the pieces rearranged on the board in all possible ways...and for each configuration, figure out the number of possible moves starting from that configuration all the way to the end...you know, and add all those up, and you would only begin to fathom the number of infinities that are possible. But you see, a much easier and more direct and true thing to say is a person can create universes. As many as he wants to.

Q: But you're not really talking about science.

A: Of course not. I'm talking about desire. What a person wants to create. You really start learning about desire when you use your imagination with great intensity and scope, because most of your desires ARE discovered/invented through imagination. This is life. Full life. It's not mathematics. It's not dry. It's passion taken to higher and deeper levels. When I was standing in the middle of one of my electric-lightning spouting machines, the essence of that was BEING ALIVE.
JON RAPPOPORT
http://nomorefakenews.com/
 
And now we've gotten to the stage where a poster puts up large swathes of text from elsewhere instead of engaging in discourse. This is all classic FTMB stuff ;)
 
Ironic that the best argument that can be presented is from a site called nomorefakenews, in the form of an imaginary (fake) interview with Tesla, which that writer uses and a vehicle for his opinions, not necessarily those of Tesla who is conveniently dead and unable to say whether he agrees with any of the "interview".
 
Perhaps the intent was to inject a little more levity into the thread and shift away from impending flaming.

I like to see the glass half full :)
 
You snuck in there pretty sharpish Timble. Please don't misconstrue my disappointment.
 
Back
Top