Erwin Chargaff - "In most sciences the question `Why?' is forbidden and the answer is actually to the question `How?' - Science is much better in explaining than in understanding, but it likes to mistake one for the other"
V.A. Firsoff - "Yet knowing the elements involved in a process is not the same as understanding the means by which the process is performed, and such understanding is conspicuous by its absence" re: viral invasion of cells. p. 74 `Life Among the Stars' London 1974
Konrad Lorenz - "We are all familiar with the term 'reproductive instinct'. However, we should not imagine - as many vitalistic students of instinct did - that the invention of such a term provides the explanation of the process in question" from `Das Sogenannte Böse' - `On Aggression'
Charles Darwin - "It is so easy to hide our ignorance ... and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact." speaking truer than he knew, in the conclusion to `On the Origin of Species'
What they each meant was the pages of detailed description of any of the big processes of science - say, `inertia' or `momentum' or Coriolis `force' or even `gravity - which try to disguise the fact that scientists haven't got the faintest idea how they really work.
If you don't believe it, ask a scientist.
Let's say you're studying the gyroscope, or just one of its attributes called gyroscopic precession - which also affects our Earth, its weather, and maybe its Ice Ages - and you ask a scientist:
- you'll get lots of description but if you keep asking "Why?" and "How?" - he'll give up, saying "It's the Gyroscopic Principle".
Which means - he doesn't know how or why!
Most of modern science's `theories' are actually circular arguments, with no real scientific meaning - scientists don't know how or why the universe really works!
Return to "Blind Science"
2. Here's a (long) pasted Los Alamos / NASA PR SCROLL DOWN
"Three spacecraft reveal unexplained motion
LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY NEWS RELEASE - September 24, 1998
LOS ALAMOS, N.M., Sept. 24, 1998 - A team of planetary scientists and physicists has identified a tiny, unexplained sunward acceleration in the motions of the Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11 and Ulysses spacecraft. The anomalous acceleration -- about 10 billion times smaller than the acceleration we feel from Earth's gravitational pull -- was identified after detailed analyses of radio data from the spacecraft.
The research team, led by John Anderson of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and including Michael Nieto of the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory, considered and ruled out many possible causes for the perturbation in the spacecrafts' motions. The team expects the explanation, when found, will involve conventional physics and understanding, but the team has also considered what implication the anomalous motion has for some new physical effect.
The accelerations are so persistent that they could be pointing to some relevant physics that's been overlooked in trying to explain the motions of bodies in the universe. The Ulysses probe, orbiting the Sun's poles, is one of three spacecraft to experience unexplained motions."
Sorry about the length of that. Yes, these were "spacecraft", each rotating, and always either in orbit around something or traveling in a larger "swapping orbit" to get to another something to orbit
And yes, we did get around to replying to that cry for help and John R Gustafson (a fine modest Los Alamos PR man) assures me that "they" - the scientists, are considering the proffered solution. They're welcome to tell the world - but not to patent it - as soon as they really understand it
[ Note : latest '04 update, with lots of omissions and at least one interesting admission, at "oldnews1" ]
[ Note: that is not the only recommend given to NASA by `Perceptions' - see VERIFIED for some others ]
Basically, when a rotating spacecraft crosses equatorial plane of a larger rotating body, it experiences an increase in effective "gravity" w.r.t. that body. Conversely, when the spacecraft passes through an axial line of any rotating body, it experiences a tiny, but exponential decrease in effective "gravity" w.r.t. that body.
Check mail answers - fuller explanation
Later - for other effects on spacecraft - fertility.
4 April 1999 You know about "Jets"? - they're on the Web here, here, here and many more places
Well all "jets", whether galactic, stellar, or atmospheric - in Earth type thunderstorms - are produced by that effect just noted above. In effect, by the axial line of a sufficient rotating mass - from /uef/jets
Different types of jets:-
1) galactic - produced by an imploding & wildly rotating galactic center
2) stellar - produced by a fast-spinning neutron star
3) atmospheric - produced by a vortex of electrons and ions: the discharge point of a lightning strike - see latest update 2006.
(Feb. 2003 - see earlier mis-understanding)
Makes sense now, doesn't it? It happens because Space is dynamic
That is - Space is nearly uniformly filled by a radiated, nonlocal force, or field of force, that we can call the U.E.F. or Universal Energy Field (or even Flux)
The same force that holds your body (and ours) together, saving a lot of mess!
`Jets' explain why star formation takes place in spiral galaxies' arms (made of plasma, dust and gas ejecta from past jets) but not in elliptical galaxies where no disk has yet formed to eventually produce a `jet' from its core. Elliptical galaxies have no dust, gas clouds - no trace of `jets'.
But mainstream scientists will not / cannot agree - even though some NASA and UK & US university people who have received our inside information [and are actually using it] are maybe beginning to suspect the truth - jets.html#Here
Well, NASA now has that info - along with more
for free, as you saw above
and can make use of it - without full U.E.F. explanation,
which you will get added on shortly - hopefully
Search for web-links - "Jet" / "Gamma Ray Burst"
Later - see UEF Theory
Latest - Jan. 2003 see "preparation for climb-down"
29 January 2003 - Looks like N.A.S.A. & the A.A.A.S. are getting on-board UEF Theory without quite admitting it - now hinting that "black holes" aren't "black" and aren't "holes"
But some old fogies seem still in denial, of the fact that :-
UEF Theory says "Galaxies are created by redistributing matter"
UEF Theory also says "There are no `black holes'!"