🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct3.203143.25841@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.170042.17319@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>>: In article <1992Oct2.230052.25196@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:

>>religion has had great impact on the sciences. As such, discussion of
>>this impact (both positive and negative),  would probably be acceptable
>>here.

>     In religion, interpretation is everything.  In physics, interpretation
>     should at least be secondary (and if you are a positivist, it should
>     be nothing).

Huh! .. The paradigms of Physics and physical sciences have been 
numerous over its short history.  Data interpreted through various 
current paradigms present quite importantly differing views.  More 
importantly, these paradigms are not yet sufficient in unifying the 
whole of physical knowledge.  There are cracks and gaps and it is 
going to take more than tuckpointing to fix the mess.  Consequently, 
it seems to me that interpretation or understanding of data in a 
system of knowledge is at least of co-equal importance. 

Looking at the systems of knowledge that constitute physics today
and comparing it with other systems of reality is interesting. 
Physics seems to be something on the order of truth while religion
is more mythological.  However, I see not that much difference
between the two.  Consider the mythological constructs of charge
mass and time.  

For example: How is it that a massive object with uniform zero 
net charge that is large enough to distort the local metric can 
generate magnetic fields by merely spinning and precessing**. The
theory that such fields are due to internal currents just doesn't 
cut it when all the resistive Is damping is included, although 
such currents could be induced and therefore modify the behavior 
of some other yet to be understood oscillating source or driver.  
Furthermore it seems that spinning precessing neutron stars have 
absolutely enormous  B - fields by comparison to the earth. So 
does the strength of the generated field depend upon things as 
the average mass density, total mass, the speeds of the spin and 
recession?  Just as likely such correlations may be coincidental,
and there is no obvious conflict with the concept that all mag 
fields are produced by charge particle (or displacement) currents  
However, if it  doesn't even by just a tiny weensy bit, the current
theory is due for a MAJOR overhaul.  

** Assumes the Internal Current theory is not adequate. 

>     When you open this Pandora's box, you invite the criticism of 
>     those who are very religious, and very misguided when it comes
>     to science.  

Science finds "things" and names them, and then distinguishes 
the newly named for other things by their distinctive behavior or 
characteristics and not by "What the entity really is."  An
electron moves this or that way in a magnetic and electric field
which is quite distinctive (and can be calculated to excellent 
precision).  A rabbit is the animal that makes a distinctive track 
in the snow :<  :<   :<   going in --> direction.  But what is a 
rabbit?;  and for physics: What IS an electron.  What is? one of 
the electron's components:  charge?   

So physics is a house of largely quasi-mythological cards.  Yet, 
what physicist could or would easily imagine or admit that his 
profession is just a nick above the mythological reality theorists 
of the past.   

Now -- IF--  we discover the nature of charge and how it relates 
through the dynamics of time and space to mass or gravity, etc.,
then we are getting somewhere.  So far it's mostly wishful thinking.	

Sort of like a pile of manure, the truth of reality is out there
somewhere we can almost smell it.  At least in the case of physics 
we are  close enough to begin to get a whiff of the "pile".  Just 
remember, a whiff isn't much compared to a swim in the real 
thing.  So until we get a much better and substantially more 
broadly consistent physics, it is too easy for us to be "misguided" 
about reality of our actual progress.  

Maybe it's time for us to pull our arrogant heads out of our 
proverbial dark matter rooms and listen to the complaints of 
children that have to learn this pile of awkward rubbish we foist 
on them, and which is very contrary to their instinct for 
simplicity and elegance.   

+---------------------------------------------------------+**********+
| Paul M. Koloc, President, Prometheus II, Ltd.           +Commercial*
|                   Bx 222, College Park, MD 20740-0222   ***FUSION***
| mimsy!promethe!pmk        pmk%prometheus@mimsy.umd.edu  ***in the***
| (301) 445-1075            promethe=prometheus           **Nineties**
+---------------------------------------------------------************