If it was proven, it would work all the time. But as the New York Times article clearly states, they only have theories. Yes, they have some answers for some limited inquiries, but they don’t have all the answers. And I think that because they try and come off– scientists that is– as having the answers, or being oh-so-close to having the answers, that they do a disservice to us, and themselves, when they try and make it sound as though they really and truly have the answers.

We think it is this way, but it might be that way. The suggestion is that it can only be one of these two, that they are already pretty much right, therefore they are right, so lets move on without actually proving anything!

I read the NYTimes piece. It is typically populist and trite, but that’s par for the course.

Here are some notes:

– “I take it as a confirmation that Einstein is still right,” Peter F. Michelson of Stanford, principal investigator for Fermi’s Large Area Telescope and one of 206 authors of a paper published online Wednesday in the journal Nature, said in an interview.”

A paper with 206 authors is not a paper, it is a consensus opinion seeking ‘peer’ confirmation. It might as well be an Encyclical from the Pope, with that kind of baggage.

– “There is no evidence so far that the energy or wavelength of light affects its speed through space. That is important because of what it could say about the structure of space-time.”

“No evidence,” they say, and then contradict themselves:

– “Some theorists have suggested that space on very small scales has a granular structure that would speed some light waves faster than others — in short, that relativity could break down on the smallest scales.”

Well, maybe. And again:

– “Dr. Michelson and others emphasize that while the new Fermi results do not yet eliminate the prospect, further observations with more gamma-ray bursts could eventually verify or refute the hypothesis.”

“Could eventually verify or refute.” Yes, indeed. They surely have it solved.

And the importance is?

–”That would have a major effect on physicists’ efforts to unify the Einsteinian gravity that governs outer space with the weird quantum laws that govern the inner space of the atom.”

The importance is that Physics is a ruined mess of theories, with no weather vane and no compass needle pointing anywhere, because physics and astronomy have been broken, temporarily, but for some time, by simulation theories – pure math, against all observation.

They’re living in Plato’s perfectible universe of the mind. Plato eschewed observation, because it could not be trusted, and valued only the product of the mind – thought – imagination.

Einstein’s theory of ’space-time,’ of gravity ‘bending’ empty space, look to critics to be just such products of imagination. I’m inclined to agree with them, based on evidence of Plasma and Electromagnetism as forming and governing energies in the universe, and through all living material.

Cheers,

Liam

You wrote: “what I find most interesting about your response is that it does not find direct fault with what I have written other than that it is not ‘believable’ to you. It’s too ’simple’.”

Comment: No, I disputed several key, specific points, which you aren’t responding to.

You wrote: “There were several questions in your post that you asked for which I have no answer.”

Comment: That I appreciate knowing. That is honest. I’m not sure why you didn’t start there, though I appreciate you saying it. I think that’s a level of honesty that is missing from science, or most public science, in any case.

You wrote: “I don’t think anyone has an answer to such questions.”

Comment: That’s a philosophical statement. The problem is, current science is in the way of exploration of many of these questions. It won’t budge. It’s arrogant, and like you are doing, it runs from a challenge. Unlike you, though, it doesn’t admit when it doesn’t have answers. It acts as a religion. Again, I appreciate that you’re pausing to state that there are answers you don’t have – that’s the beginning, in my opinion, of understanding. I’m right there myself, asking questions. But I don’t think it’s enough to say “I don’t think anyone has answers to such questions.” That’s also not science. It’s not curious.

what I find most interesting about your response is that it does not find direct fault with what I have written other than that it is not ‘believable’ to you. It’s too ’simple’.

There were several questions in your post that you asked for which I have no answer. I don’t think anyone has an answer to such questions. I happened to answer the simpler questions for which I know I have a stronger understanding and experience with how evidence could gathered and used to support an argument.

I see no reason to believe that some substantial more complicated process led to what we see around us and, more importantly, it would disagree with the sizable amounts of knowledge we do have from observations I drew upon to put forth what I have written. I mean, Occam’s Razor is useful for a reason.

I think you are seeking something that science will undoubtedly fail to provide you. Because of this fact, you feel that science is some kind of failure while you are typing to me probably hundreds of miles away. It’s almost ironic.

I’m not overly offended by what you have written, but if your stance is that whatever current theories of science I bring will be ‘too simple’ then I must bid you farewell.

Take care,

FM

Mr. McGrew,

I didn’t get this into my note. You wrote:

“You can try this experiment for yourself. Take a variety of different sizes bread crumbs and place them in the center of a pan of water. Make sure they are all soaked. Then spin the pan. The larger, more massive breadcrumbs will remain closer to the center of the pan, while smaller ones will move farther away. The same thing happens in space.”

What will happen in space? The heavier planets will end up near the sun? Where is Jupiter? Saturn? Uranus?

Where is Mercury? Is Mercury heavier than Jupiter?

These questions have baffled astronomers – the disorder of the planets, vis-a-vis ‘accretion disk models.’ Isn’t that so?

Worlds Apart
Nature, 17 April 2003
Our knowledge of planets outside our Solar System has been transformed in the past few years. But these new-found worlds don’t look much like our planetary neighbours, and no one is quite sure why.

View the article: PDF (80 KB)

back to you,

Liam

I appreciate your dutiful and often-detailed answer. I’m going to read and consider all parts of it over the next few days.

That said, I’m not sure you actually answered any of the questions I asked – you provided some current beliefs describing some of the events, but those are often beliefs, and far more contentious in the corresponding literature than you’re letting on:

ie – that the solar system, or any solar system, is created out of a gravity-only ‘accretion disk.’ Correct me if I that’s not what you’re saying. This was Immanual Kant’s idealization in the 18th Century – that the solar system bundled itself together out of a clumpy dusty mass, through the force of nothing but Newton’s gravity.

Is it true? It’s been falsified enough in observation.

As to the speed of light – you cited the NYTimes citing Einstein – you have put us on bad footing, as I don’t believe that the NYTimes reports much of anything true, (though I will read the page thoroughly), but more importantly, that Einstein’s mapping of an idea of space-time in a gravity-only universe were simply wrong. I think he knew he was wrong, too, based on statements he made toward the end of his life. He was honorable that way.

You also wrote:

“it is imaginable that there would have been a higher density of oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen in their excited states or in the form of free radicals floating around looking to make molecules with each other. Since amino acids are relatively simple molecules, it’s not out of this world to believe that they could have formed via this mechanism.”

Question: What mechanism?

Whose mechanism? Why should there be a mechanism?

This goes to my question – the primary: What is nature? What is a law of nature? Who provides the officers who uphold the law? Can a photon be punished for dawdling? Who provides the court which tries and punishes the law-breakers?

It’s not a law, unless it’s enforced. Who or what is doing the enforcing? If you say, “nature,” then you’re attributing to this all-powerful-all-in-one diety-non-deity both the source of, and the mechanism producing – all material – and affecting all change in all material.

That’s a holy thing to say to anybody.

Indeed, how is it that anyone who knows anything about cell biology can say that amino acids are ‘relatively simple molecules?’ Just because a few of them organize (oh, ’self-organize’) in the presence of magic elements and lightning means they’re ’simple?’

Are proteins, which are made of amino acids, also “relatively simple?” Is DNA, whose digital code is more elegantly complex and wildly versatile than any computer language yet devised by humankind, also “relatively simple?”

You’ve got to get from there to here, and if you’re telling me a story that goes “It was all very simple, there was an accretion disk, it manifested as a sun and rocky and gaseous planets; the sun gives off heavy and light elements; those elements quite simply bonded to form life.”

Then, my friend, you’re telling me a story. A nice story. But one that is absolutely untestable. It is also teleological [goal- or end- or purpose-seeking]. It is, in fact, reverse-teleology. You know where were are, so in your story telling, you make it quite apparent that it’s “quite simple” that we ended up here – because we did!

“You see, how simple!”

But it ain’t simple. It’s beyond a level of complexity, from the assumptions you’re making (or seem to be, forgive me if I’m in error) about a gravity-only universe, which ‘accretes’ stars and planets out of dust through the immensely weak force of gravity… to the microcosmos of molecules, which are so wonderfully engineered, it seems, to be able to, as you say, find relationships with each other and form into an endless array of material, both crystalline, and, lo-and-behold, animate.

I pause in some horror when, in the midst of an immensely technical, highly improbable explanation of universal ‘accident’ or happenstance, I’m repeatedly told how “simple” it all is.

I do thank you, nevertheless for your comment. I will, as I said, read it more thoroughly, to look at each part of the process you outlined. I hope you will not be overly offended by my lack of belief in pretty explanations. I will read all you sent, however.

Bests,

Liam

PS –

You wrote:

“The early earth, unlike the earth of today, had a much smaller magnetic field. This idea is fairly new and probably still controversial, but I think we can rely on it nonetheless.”

I wonder if you can talk more about that? Do you think space is a void, or that it contains an ether?

as far as the first question goes, the sun is the source of all atoms heavier than hydrogen. It gets most of the energy we receive as sunlight by fusing hydrogen nuclei together to make helium. But other reactions can happen. In fact, energy can be harnessed by nuclear fusion in a star like the sun all the way up to iron.

Now, after some time, the atoms made in the sun are projected out due to excess angular momentum and electromagnetic interactions. When these atoms get to the outer reaches of the sun, they are in the many forms of their ions, either being positively or negatively charged depending on the particular atom. Some of this ions interact via electromagnetic laws and some other will even bind, forming molecules.

Most of these atoms, however, end up in a disc that extends in a plane around the sun. This is called an accretion disc. The heavier elements are closer in. The lighter elements are farther out. That’s why rocky planets are closer to the sun.

You can try this experiment for yourself. Take a variety of different sizes bread crumbs and place them in the center of a pan of water. Make sure they are all soaked. Then spin the pan. The larger, more massive breadcrumbs will remain closer to the center of the pan, while smaller ones will move farther away. The same thing happens in space.

Based on the physics of the accretion disc, one can predict how far from the sun atoms of particular sizes will congregate. The earth happens to sit at the point where lots of the oxygen made by the young sun would end up. Since nitrogen is one atomic unit smaller than oxygen, there is a lot of nitrogen here as well.

The early earth, unlike the earth of today, had a much smaller magnetic field. This idea is fairly new and probably still controversial, but I think we can rely on it nonetheless. Because the magnetic field was much smaller, a smaller amount of high frequency light, charged particles and electromagnetic anomalies were deflected away from the surface of the young earth.

When atoms come in contact with high energy charged particles and electromagnetic fields (light especially), electrons are excited to higher energy states or blown off completely. The atoms subsequently become much more reactive. That means they are much more likely to form bonds. So, with the higher density of high energy charged particles and light incident on the early earth, it is imaginable that there would have been a higher density of oxygen, nitrogen and hydrogen in their excited states or in the form of free radicals floating around looking to make molecules with each other. Since amino acids are relatively simple molecules, it’s not out of this world to believe that they could have formed via this mechanism.

As for the speed of light argument, it is important to note specifically what these scientists are saying. They are wonder if the 15th or 16th significant digit, which we cannot measure at this point, of the speed of light has changed over time. That’s a change of one millionth of one billionth of its speed. In fact, there was a large gamma burst measured last fall from a stellar explosion more than 7 billion light years away. That means that the star exploded more than 7 billion years ago and it’s taken that long for the light to get to earth. If there was a moment to notice a change in the speed of light, this was it.

Do you know what the researchers found? Over the immense expanse of space and time that these photons traveled, there was no discernible change in their speed. All of the different gamma rays arrived at essentially the same time, even though they each may have seen slightly different defects in spacetime itself.

More on that here.

I think that ‘laws’ of nature can get confused for habits, but I think that the physics that happens on earth is the same physics that happens everywhere. There is no privileged position from which to watch the unfoldings around us. All viewpoints will see the same thing, after properly transforming into their reference frame.

So I can understand your frustration with some expects of science, but I think that you’ve run into the wrong people to explain all of this to you. Some of it I don’t understand. Check that, almost all of it I don’t understand. But this lack of understanding does not preclude there being a reason for why something happens that can be explained by science at some point.

I mean, just because people believed the sun went around the earth does not mean that it did go around the earth, right?

Cheers.

Short answer – no, no ‘family heads’ agreed to be interviewed, most didn’t respond… Dennis Dockstader was the only major staff who agreed to talk – and I commend and appreciate his openness in doing so.

Yes, a ‘for us, by us’ project was what I always had in mind – a place to put the history on the map for us to recall and, indeed, process; as you rightly point out, we hadn’t, and haven’t, really. The culture at large is not aware of these strange places, except in very very rare passing reference in a very few pieces of fiction or biography, or film….

I’m just hoping to keep it from the memory hole, you know?

Check out the new site – – I’ll post a longer response there…
http://liamscheff.com/surviving-cedu/

- Liam

One of the virtues claimed by the Stratfordian world view is the picture of a common gentleman with humble background becoming/growing into a world-class genius. That is possible and appropriate historic examples of “boot strap” achievements are well documented: Mark Twain, Abraham Lincoln, etc.

The lesson one therefore takes form the Stratfordian story is that education is less important than genes, that learning the classics and disciplining the mind in school are merely options. Learning styles may vary, person to person, but education (I argue) must be seen as an investment into human infrastructure that pays liberal dividends when it’s done well. And I think the biography of Edward de Vere (see SBAN) makes a strong case affirming the need for education. It is a civic imperative upon which hope itself depends.

Out of nothing more than pure curiosity, I’m wondering what this experience has been like for you? I’m sure on some level you made the Cedu documentary to answer questions for yourself about what it was the all went through while spending time in Running Springs. However, you have clearly tapped a nerve for a rather large amount of former Cedu students who were unresolved with their own experiences at the “school.” Since none of us really had the opportunity to process our time at Cedu post our stay, the viewing of your videos and chance to reply to the interviews seems to be serving former students as a therapeutic detox if you will. Just interested in whether or not this what your documentary was intended to do? Finally, did any former “Family Heads” even reply to your offer for an interview? Thanks again for you work on this subject.

Yeah, I guess the US govt had nothing to do with it. That’s why the word “Lone gunman” is a joke in the x-files.

What bugs me about these debunking shows is they always have some really well trained, super marksman, firing on a range, not at a human being. People who spend a lot of time firing guns of all varieties and are experts. Oswald had merely been in the Marine Corps. Yeah, you learn to shoot there. But he wasn’t a Marine sniper or anything. It wasn’t his day to day job. He wasn’t portrayed as being an avid hunter or gun nut. In none of the documentaries did they ever even suggest he went somewhere and practiced the assassination. And then there’s the rifle he chose to use. Probably the worst bolt-action rifle ever made. Why not buy a better one, like a Lee Enfield .303, a common sniper rifle used for decades and easly acquired?

And consider his plan.

He went to work carrying a rifle? I am sure it is possible nobody saw this, but it would certainly catch the eye. He didn’t work alone. There were plenty of people around. And when he fired the shots, why didn’t anyone notice a rifle being fired inside the building? Three or four times for that matter. This was Texas, not California. Maybe I am stereotyping, but I would think people in Texas would be a little more familiar with guns and gunshots. It just seems a Southern thing. Wouldn’t it be a bit loud? I’ve been to shooting ranges, you wear ear protection for a reason. And when you fire a gun, it stinks. You can smell it. Why did nobody ever claim they smelled anything? If someone fired off a gun inside your house and you were say, out in the garage or whatever, you wouldn’t notice?

And his plan wasn’t to leave right away, use the crowds outside to vanish, but instead thought it best to go downstairs and have lunch and a soda? But then he leaves anyway, after finishing his meal?

And then the question I always ask. Who benefits? Why would Oswald want Kennedy dead? What benefit would it really be to him? Consider the attempted assassination of Reagan in 1981. The guy who shot him knew the Bush family. I believe he was a friend of Marvin Bush, brother of George and Jeb. Bush Senior was Vice President. They say he did it to impress Jodie Foster, but when you ask who would benefit? Well, if I was VP and someone killed the Prez, I would enjoy a nice little promotion.

You can stretch out in to all the other aspects of the story, the big stuff, try and figure out who might have done it, or if there were others involved. I try and focus on the little details first, the stuff that doesn’t add up, doesn’t make sense, doesn’t match with reality as I know it.

Lee Harvey was a Patsy, but most people just called him Lee.

I too have heard the theory that the original passengers and aircraft on 9-11 were flown out in to the Atlantic and sunk. It does make some sense if you feel the aircraft used that day to crash in to the World Trade Centers were remotely piloted. The passengers would have to be gotten rid of somehow. You don’t just stick some magnetic box to the side of the fuselage and whammo, remotely piloted aircraft! My only problem with this aspect of the story is why would anyone simply destroy the original aircraft? A 757 is pretty expensive. If you are going to replace it with a different aircraft designed to be remotely piloted, why not just repaint the replaced aircraft and use them elsewhere? Getting rid of the passengers doesn’t mean the hundred million dollar aircraft needs to go away too.

But ultimately, what gets me to believe governments were directly involved is history. Governments for two thousand years have been creating false flag events to get the populace behind unpopular wars. Killing their own citizens and blaming the events on a specific enemy to enrage the people in to backing war. It is a tried and true method. I personally believe most of the “suicide bombers” over the last couple of decades, including the first one, were government operations designed to make a specific group of people look evil. There may have been legitimate copy cats later, but I think the first one and most of the subsequent ones were government orchestrated. With total control over the media, it isn’t too hard to control the “facts” of the story to have it told in a way that furthers an agenda. And exactly whose agenda does suicide bombing help most?

If you think about it, what is the difference between strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing yourself up, and putting a bomb in a paper bag and placing it somewhere to blow up remotely? You don’t need to kill yourself to create carnage. So why would you?

Now consider this alternate scenario. A person, maybe an Iraqi or Palestinian is stopped by occupation authorities for a long interrogation. They are stripped of their clothing to make them more vulnerable and scared, and PETN is sewn in to their clothing, much like the failed suicide bomber on Christmas recently. The authorities then tell the person they are going to be allowed to go, but they will need to stop by some specific place to fill out some paperwork first, and then they let them go. The person walks to wherever they are supposed to go and along the way, boom! Or, a bomb is placed in the trunk of their car, they drive to the destination they are told to, and along the way, boom!

Think of this in your own life. If the police here stopped you for speeding or whatever, pulled you over, “searched” your vehicle and then came up to you and said, “Did you know you are wanted for some huge crime?” And you said, no. And they said, “Well, we believe you, but you need to go over to this police station and allow them to finger print you to verify you aren’t that person and get your name cleared. We suggest you go there now.” You’d go. But while they were searching your vehicle, they put a bomb in your trunk, would you stop to check, or just drive away to wherever you were going, or straight to the police station? Police often ask you where you are going? So they’d know if you were going some place with a lot of people. Then boom!

If it is that easy to create a suicide bomber, or a patsy, and there is no real reason to blow yourself up when remote detonation is just as effective, why assume anyone is really doing it? Whose agenda does it serve?

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

I’ve seen plane crash wreckage (DFW airport), planes don’t disappear on impact.