Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 20:16:26 +0100
 Subject: Re: Objective reality

 ----- Original Message ----- 

 From: "David ***" 

 > Hi Bob,

 >>Yes, I am already aware that "science has depended not just on 
 >>jorneyman scientists, but also on visionaries who explore wild 
 >>new ideas and think outside the box." What I wanted to know 
 >>here was exactly what that "wild new idea" was.

 >Perhaps I could give an example for Ray?  Albert Einstein's 
 >Special Relativity theory was a wild new idea, as was Nikola
 >Tesla's polyphase motor.  The concept of a heliocentric solar 
 >system in the 1600s was a wild new idea, then.  Nikola Tesla was 
 >told that his polyphase motor was a perpetual motion machine and 
 >was ignored for eleven years after he first proposed it.  Today, 
 >the polyphase motor is the backbone of industrial and 
 >technological progress.

 <snip>

 Hello David and Bob,

 To expand a bit (unusual for me) - we claim to develop and adopt new
 theories (completely new outlooks on the universe) but in fact we rarely
 (or even never) do that.

 Relativity was incomplete from the start (though claimed to have been so
 when `adopted') because it fudged the small items of mass and inertia
 (momentum) and their linkage. Not only that, but it totally failed to
 consider atomic structure; instead the `new theory' merely swallowed
 whole the old Newtonian `atomism' (e.g that all protons, neutrons etc,
 are identical - but under real Relativity that would have meant, if so,
 all protons have the same `address' - clearly not true.)

 In addition, in the real world, NASA and others still use `absolute time'
 (Newtonian + Quantum) and `instantaneous gravity' (Newtonian + Quantum)
 because they _work_ in the real world - see Tom Van Flandern's `Speed of
 Gravity' paper on the Net.

 Finally, Einstein himself admitted that if Relativity (_or_ Quantum)
 were a `complete' theory we wouldn't have to try to measure the `constants
 of nature' - we would know from the theory. ["In a reasonable theory there
 are no dimensionless numbers whose values are only empirically determinable."
 - Albert Einstein - letter to Rosenthal-Schneider 13 Oct. 1945]

 So I'm asking us to look ahead to the formulation, adoption _and_ successful
 implementation of a _complete_ theory - explaining mass, matter and inertia
 (momentum); the `constants of nature'; the individuality of each particle
 in the universe _plus_ the non-local `field' (or whatever) that can and does
 entangle (inter-connect) potentially each particle in the universe -
 instantaneously over arbitrary (maybe infinite?) distance.

 [The `entanglement' explanation must also include `half life' - at present
 a mystery, and under present theories a paradox.]

 Until we have that, we don't really know what we're talking about; that's
 maybe because some elements / factors in that complete theory are almost
 certainly unknown to us and maybe immeasurable or undetectable (directly)
 by us at this time.

 Shall we get down to it?

 Ray 

---------------------------------------------

 Evidence file for -

 UEF Index - www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/ 
 Smolin on Physics - www.perceptions.couk.com/smolin-physics.html

 and maybe a few more angry / impatient txt / html pages 

---------------------------------------------

              FURTHER REFERENCES

  GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE


file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/uef/getdowntoit.txt