Open Letter to TVF

I'm sorry to say TVF that there is no phenomenological foundation for Le Sage's hypothesis and Pushing Gravity simply because the hypothesis is framed and it is not a conclusion from any empirical observation or phenomenon. I have read the whole book and while I'm impressed with the theory it is still in the realm of a bold hypothesis with no empirical justification. This is not bad, however, no phenomenology is involved at all in such theory, and as a consequence in the Meta Model. I stil repeat that this is not necessarily a bad thing, however we cannot speack of phenomenological interpretations of something that is not deduced from the phenomena.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Enrico</i>
<br />I'm sorry to say TVF that there is no phenomenological foundation for Le Sage's hypothesis and Pushing Gravity simply because the hypothesis is framed and it is not a conclusion from any empirical observation or phenomenon. I have read the whole book and while I'm impressed with the theory it is still in the realm of a bold hypothesis with no empirical justification. This is not bad, however, no phenomenology is involved at all in such theory, and as a consequence in the Meta Model. I stil repeat that this is not necessarily a bad thing, however we cannot speack of phenomenological interpretations of something that is not deduced from the phenomena.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't claim to be anything more than a layman, but even the layman needs things that add up. I'm drifting toward the skeptics' camp because I believe I'm asking the same kinds of questions. For instance, GR has a repeatable experiment: during an eclipse you can compare the apparent to actual (in "normal" SOL frame of reference, as opposed to FTL) position of a star near the sun (relative to the eclipse observer on Earth), and see that the sun bends that star's light as it passes near the sun.

Why, if FTL experiments (at least a half-dozen of them) are valid, does mainstream science refuse to acknowledge them as such? Or is there a breakdown in communication or interpretation? The discussion between TVF and Kopeikin convinced me that the two camps barely speak the same language. If the experts can't even locate a common alphabet, how can we expect the layman to back either one? Because, folks, without the layman's backing, in 21st Century science, anyway, "****" flat don't get done.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Samizdat</i>
<br />Why, if FTL experiments (at least a half-dozen of them) are valid, does mainstream science refuse to acknowledge them as such?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is factual that the experiments and their interpretation have been published in two peer-reviewed journals, and that all objections have been answered to the satisfaction of neutral parties. There has been no response from the relativity community to our latest co-authored publication in "Foundations of Physics".

You ask why, and I can only answer that most of us have the ability to learn new things; but many of us, perhaps even the majority, have great difficulty in unlearning things once learned wrongly. That is why so many act on their beliefs as if they had vested interests, even when their own interests would be better served by change. Knowledge becomes intertwined into many mental structures, and is not so easily removed.

To put yourself into that frame of mind, ask yourself what you would do if your most strongly held belief not shared by most people (e.g., a religious belief) were challenged. Would you be eager to get to the truth of the challenge no matter where that truth might lie? Or has too much of your life been invested in consequences of that belief, which would have to be written off if the belief was proved wrong? How objective would you be?

Unlearning old things is very different from discovering new things, and does not happen easily. -|Tom|-

Hmm. I would have expected a "Reply with Quote" of "If the experts can't even locate a common alphabet, how can we expect the layman to back either one?" Ach, the curse of the layman.

This discussion has become root-bound, as regards my motives, anyway. I'm more interested in following the work of experimental physics in FTL phenomena and translating into useful human applica-
tions such achievements as the FTL Mozart transfer--again, I'll provide the musical data transfer references to the skeptical, but lean toward allowing the interested to do their own research rather than spoonfeeding it them--much like Tom would rather we overcame our abysmal ignorance of relevant material [or, in my case, an additional aversion to purchases of books or any other goddamn thing by credit card--is there anyone left who still takes payment by money order?]

I suspect we have become too self-contained on these boards. In my own defense, I will state that I have attempted independent corroboration (and, by inference, verification of the basic science involved) of such terms as "elyson." Don't get me wrong--I'm probably the biggest advocate of individuality and maverickism there is, but I also recognize the need for frequent and regular peer criticism, not just the periodic canonization of fact in peer review. David looks better to the thinking man when Goliath is a constantly gnawing challenge necessitating ever sharpening objectivity and unassailable results (presuming we could achieve agreement between Tom and Enrico on a basic like the meaning of "phenomena," for instance, or between Tom and Kopeikin on the meaning of the propagation of gravity).

Again, I presume to be nothing more than a layman, and one very confused by the fundamental lack of a basic, mutually understandable language between experts. Unfortunately, the conclusiveness of any debate is only as good as the last zinger point scored, and in our case, we haven't even got past the opening stage of debate, i.e., definition of terms.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Samizdat</i>
<br />an additional aversion to purchases of books or any other goddamn thing by credit card--is there anyone left who still takes payment by money order?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Please see [url] metaresearch.org/store/advanced/default.asp [/url]. We offer six payments options, one of which is money order. You might also look into setting up a PayPal account, which is far more convenient and less risky than credit cards.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I have attempted independent corroboration (and, by inference, verification of the basic science involved) of such terms as "elyson."<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

An elyson is the unit particle for elysium. The latter is the new name for the "light-carrying medium" or LCM, which is phonetically similar to elysium. It is a modern updating of concepts known at various times or in various theories as "aether", "space-time medium", or "local gravitational potential field".

That's the definition. But it won't be obvious what led us to define such an entity unless you read some of the related books or articles.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... presuming we could achieve agreement between Tom and Enrico on a basic like the meaning of "phenomena," for instance, or between Tom and Kopeikin on the meaning of the propagation of gravity.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The former should be easy, but the latter presumes that neither party has become too committed to his own position. This is Kopeikin's one and only career claim to fame. We sat down and discussed the matter in person about five months back, he asked lots of appropriate questions, and seemed to understand the matter when we parted. But he quickly reverted, and has now put forward yet another archive paper with the same old assumptions that nearly everyone challenges. -|Tom|-

Thanks for the ordering info and the patience, Tom. I'm having a tough time reconciling myself to our level of civilization as regards capabilities. Although, by the looks of the social development of the world, a technical quantum leap or two might attract not just the attention of but quarantine by the greater galactic community. As I state in my profile at SETI@home, "I run SETI@home because I'm furiously curious, and convinced there's something better than we out there."