CRACKPOTS FAQ
Doug Merritt
>Making lists of crackpots can boil down to "don't ask fundamental questions"
>and "don't challenge accepted theories".
Only if you assume the meaning of crackpot as "one who has
nontraditional theories, or ideas that explicitly contradict
orthodox theory". ("crackpot sense #1" hereafter)
The more common meaning, and the one most often operationally
important in this group, is "someone who is extremely egotistical,
espouses ''theories'' that are (A) incoherent and (B) do not
meet the usual definition of ''theory'' in the first place, and
who do not respond in coherent logical ways to criticism that
is phrased coherently and logically; they are often extremely
negatively emotional in response to questions or critiques."
("crackpot sense #2" hereafter)
I personally generally do not offer my opinions as to who deserves to
be labelled "crackpot" (in *either* sense) and who does not...not so
much because of your point:
>Also posting "identified crackpots" by name is rude and I don't think
>it should be done.
...but because it just seems pointless, and an invitation for a
flame war.
However, going by the operational definition (#2) that I offer, you
are way off base in defending such people.
Or if you go by the definition you seemed to prefer, well, *those*
"crackpots" in sense #1 get along pretty well, on average, with other
people here. E.g. Paul Budnik and more so Jack Sarfatti have
unconventional theories that many disbelieve. But they are rarely flamed
simply for being unconventional. So in the sense you mean, people are
pretty much already following your advice.
This all seems like an unnecessary knee jerk reaction on your part.
>think about things. If you need to be told, "so and so's a crackpot",
>you don't really understand math or physics and maybe you need to
>think about a crackpot's arguments.
Mmm...I'm not in favor of a "crackpot faq", but I don't agree with
your reasoning here. There are endless untrue arguments that are
very slippery; there are better ways to learn than by spending lots
of time sorting out such things.
>If you do have a real understanding of math or physics you should be
>able to distinguish crackpottery right away and ignore it.
Yes...so? The people here who "have a real understanding of math or
physics" are easily able to "distinguish crackpottery", true, but are
you assuming that the faq has *them* as the target audience? Of course
not. So then what's the point?
>Maybe the crackpots generate so much traffic because they *do* bring up
>questions that not many people have thought about.
Only crackpots in sense #1, not in sense #2.
>Making lists of crackpots is saying "No need to think for yourself,
>here's who to believe and not to believe".
And again, although I'm not in favor of the list, your counter-argument
sounds like saying "all points of view are equally worthwhile in
one way or another", which I disagree with. A small number of
people are just plain loonie. Let me ask you this: have *you*
learned anything from reading and thinking about the posts of
the crackpots in sense #2...the incoherent non-logical ones?
I doubt it.
Doug
--
Doug Merritt do...@netcom.com
Professional Wild-eyed Visionary Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow
Unicode Novis Cypherpunks Gutenberg Wavelets Conlang Logli Alife Anthro
Computational linguistics Fundamental physics Cogsci Egyptology GA TLAs
Erik Max Francis
> Making lists of crackpots can boil down to "don't ask fundamental questions"
> and "don't challenge accepted theories".
No, it doesn't. It's one thing to suggest a theory that seriously
upsets the fundamental basis of physics -- it's been done in the past,
and the good ones have become the new fundamental bases.
Crankism (or crackpotism) isn't about developing silly theories;
that's just a side effect. Crankism is about flawed thinking, a
fundamental lack of knowledge about theories they wish to "debunk" and
physics in general, ignoring the scientific method (and then claiming
that your "theory" is scientific), and being unable to carry on a
debate without resorting to attacks or merely ignoring criticism,
constructive or otherwise.
> If you do have a real understanding of math or physics you should be
> able to distinguish crackpottery right away and ignore it.
This is true. The reason that cranks are slightly more than
amusing/annoying is that to the average person, some of the cranks
appear to be making sense, because they use technical jargon and throw
equations into their posts. Any physicist will recognize the posts as
worthless, but a newbie looking to sci.physics (or sci.astro) for
answers to real questions might get the cranks' answer and buy it;
it's happened before.
I don't have any figures handy, but I think it's safe to assume that
most people who participate in sci.physics do not have physics
degrees, and of those that do, many of them are not employed in a
physics-related field (one where you use physics on a regular basis,
anyway; all fields could be argued to have their basis in physics).
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max m...@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, CA 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W GIGO, Omega, Psi oo the fourth R _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- ftmfbs kmmfa / \
_Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt._ Founder SBWF http://www.spies.com/max/ \_/
Erik Max Francis
> And again, although I'm not in favor of the list, your counter-argument
> sounds like saying "all points of view are equally worthwhile in
> one way or another", which I disagree with.
In principle it should be true, principle has to fall to reality at
some point. Ideally everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but
the simple fact is that physicists have a limited amount of time and
resources available to them. Should they look into the theory put
forth by Joe Public, who has no background in physics, clearly has a
fundamental lack of knowledge about the theory he is intending to
replace, and whose theory is already internally inconsistent to begin
with, or should they spend their time looking into things which are on
more stable ground?
Ed Ganger
>people are just plain loonie. Let me ask you this: have *you*
>learned anything from reading and thinking about the posts of
>the crackpots in sense #2...the incoherent non-logical ones?
>I doubt it.
1. The distinction between #1 and #2 is in the mind of the beholder.
( think about Kroneker's delta when only engineers believed in it,
for example. PURE DRIVEL ... but it worked)
2. Just recognizing stuff that I refuse to believe in is an educational
experience in and of itself.
Regards,
Ed
John Wilkinson
writes:
|> On two different definitions of "crackpot" (#1: unorthodox, #2:
|> loonie):
|>
|> In article <eganger.6...@mindspring.com> ega...@mindspring.com
|> (Ed Ganger) writes:
|> >1. The distinction between #1 and #2 is in the mind of the beholder.
|> > ( think about Kroneker's delta when only engineers believed in it,
|> > for example. PURE DRIVEL ... but it worked)
|>
Perhaps you mean the Dirac delta function?
Doug Merritt
In article <eganger.6...@mindspring.com> ega...@mindspring.com (Ed Ganger) writes:
>1. The distinction between #1 and #2 is in the mind of the beholder.
> ( think about Kroneker's delta when only engineers believed in it,
> for example. PURE DRIVEL ... but it worked)
Certainly there are grey areas, but there are also white and black
areas. I don't think Kroneker's delta is a good example; new math
of various related sorts that arose in engineering have been, I think,
universally regarded as "crackpot" *only* in sense #1: a theory
that contradicts orthodoxy. I'm quite sure that e.g. Heaviside was
never regarded as insane by mathematicians; they were just suspicious
of his math, that's all.
Then there are some mathematicians like Wronski, who apparently was
a crackpot in the loonie sense #2, but who made one contribution
(the Wronskian) that was nontheless adopted by mainstream math.
This, btw, is a handy counter-example for those who are sure that
apparent crackpots in sense #2 are just *never* listened to. There
are of course far more examples from sense #1.
>2. Just recognizing stuff that I refuse to believe in is an educational
> experience in and of itself.
Indeed so. :-)
J R Partington
> Many readers of sci.physics do not have real understanding of
> math and physics. Malignant crackpots like "plutonium" sometimes
> answer physics question by non-physicists, making those non-physicists
> believe that the gibberish they are reading is the genuine answer.
Oh do stop picking on Archimedes Plutonium. His contributions are sincere
and often amusing. I'm sure many of us are grown-ups and able to
decide for ourselves what we think.
> People who post to the feminist newsgroups that all women
> belong in the kitchen and should go fetch a beer also generate
> a lot of traffic. Does that mean they are making valid contribution ?
Well yes, it's a defensible point of view, even if you don't agree
with it. Many Muslims would support it, though the beer would have to
be non-alcoholic of course.
> "Writing any FAQ is saying "No need to think for yourself, here're the
> facts to believe and not to believe".
And how do we know we should believe the author of the FAQ?
--
Dr Jonathan R. Partington, Tel: UK: (0113) 2335123. Int: +44 113 2335123
School of Mathematics, Fax: UK: (0113) 2335145. Int: +44 113 2335145
University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, U.K. Email: J.R.Par...@leeds.ac.uk
David Ullrich
regarding the fact that .999...=1? Doesn't seem to help with the infinite
series of posts explaining why .999... is really just a teensy bit smaller
than 1, does it?
--
David Ullrich
Erik Max Francis
> Crackpots themselves are first to step beyond boundaries of politeness by
> posting their theories to sci.physics. There exists dedicated newsgroup
> (alt.sci.physcis.new-theories ) for posting of the theories deemed
> nonsensical by the mainstream physics. Do you think that norms of
> politeness apply to people who disrupt discussions by making noise ?
Of all the objections you could make against cranks, this seems to me
to be the weakest. What makes them cranks is that they don't post in
the right group? If that's the case, the vast majority of
participants on Usenet are cranks.
Mark Hopkins
others crackpots are those who are either too lazy, incompetent or logic
impaired to assess what one says based solely on the only valid grounds
there are: logic; but instead look at who says it.
It's much like the difference between a dog and a human. A human (normally)
will look where the finger points, but the dog will look at the finger.
To make this into a challenge: there is no valid means to assessing who
is or is not a crackpot that has any credibility (even stronger: the scale
when applied consistently and logically will almost invariably make its
own creator a "crackpot", thereby invalidating it by reductio ad absurdum).
Take Abian, for instance. People tend to call him a crackpot. Yet, he
is perfectly capable if highly intelligence and logical argumentation
(especially in math-related areas where he's published a few books). The
moral is that you don't look at the finger (i.e. person), but you look at
where it points (i.e. what was said) -- only an animal (or human) of
lesser intelligence will look at the finger.
This applies the other way around too. Just because someone's published
a few good papers 25-30 years ago (e.g. Penrose) does not mean that anything
he or she says is automatically cogent or brilliant (e.g. Penrose's last
two books, a perfect example at that).
... or that it should even be taken seriously.
Jack Sarfatti
>
>Making lists of crackpots can boil down to "don't ask fundamental
questions" and "don't challenge accepted theories".
>
Beautiful post Laura. :-)
Robert Hatcher
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.darkside.com> wrote:
>mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
>
>> Crackpots themselves are first to step beyond boundaries of politeness by
>> posting their theories to sci.physics. There exists dedicated newsgroup
>> (alt.sci.physcis.new-theories ) for posting of the theories deemed
>> nonsensical by the mainstream physics. Do you think that norms of
>> politeness apply to people who disrupt discussions by making noise ?
>
>Of all the objections you could make against cranks, this seems to me
>to be the weakest. What makes them cranks is that they don't post in
>the right group? If that's the case, the vast majority of
>participants on Usenet are cranks.
Call me a "crank" but I wouldn't disagree with this last sentence.
-robert
--
Robert W. Hatcher | Dept. of Physics | (812) 855-4473 -8247
Research Associate | Swain Hall West 117 | hat...@pulsar.astro.indiana.edu
Indiana University | Bloomington IN 47405 | http://www.pa.msu.edu/~hatcher/
Allen Adler
> This is true. The reason that cranks are slightly more than
> amusing/annoying is that to the average person, some of the cranks
> appear to be making sense, because they use technical jargon and throw
> equations into their posts.
Let me withhold judgement on the question of the desirability of
a CRACKPOTS.FAQ. Instead, let us take a concrete example, one which
deserves to be on any crackpots list involving physics. I have
before me the October 1978 issue (#10) of World Government News, an
official publication of his holiness the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's
Transcendental Meditation. In it, we find an article entitled,
"The Physics of Unity," by Lawrence H. Domash, Chancellor and
Professor of Physics at Maharishi European Research University (MERU).
I'm told that Professor Domash got his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton.
After a certain amount of expository material on trends towards
unification theories in physics, Prof.Domash tries to take this
trend one step further by unifying all of that high powered physics
with meditation and consciousness. There is an entertaining figure
(#9) on p.17 entitled "MERU Research In the Field of Absolute
Unity: Is the Quantum Vacuum State the Same as Pure Consciousness?"
It has little pictures of waves to make it look more like physics
and annotations such as "Excitations of conscious awareness", "States
of biochemical activiation," "States of excitation of physiology",
"States of excitation of environment", "The field of unity
in consciousness: Pure Consciousness", "The field of unity in physics:
the vacuum state of the quantum field".
Question: Is there anyone outside of TM who takes Prof.Domash
seriously as a physicist?
Now, it is pertinent to ask whether most of the people whom one
finds in positions of authority in governments are well informed
about quantum mechanics and other concepts in physics. Why is it
pertinent? Because in 1976 his holiness the Maharishi announced the
advent of the Age of Enlightenment and appointed a world government
to administer it. Hence the name of the publication: World Government
News. On pp.22-25, one finds an article entitled "Creating Models of
an Ideal Society in 108 Countries: Achievements of the First Three
Months of the World Government's First Pilot Project of the Age
of Enlightenment". Quoting from the article, "In the first three
months of the project, represntatives of the World Government of the
Age of Enlightenment have made complete and comprehensive
presentations to leaders of society and responsible persons in all
of the provinces selected for the project in 20 major countries and in
many of the 88 smallest countries of the world. They have explained
how the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program brings about an
ideal society on the basis of the Maharishi Effect."
The principles underlying this effect are explained in the article of
Prof.Dolmash, although I don't see the terminology "Maharishi Effect"
used explicitly. We do, however, find, among other things of the
same genre, a picture on p.21 showing lots of parallel sine waves
reaching across a map of the world with the underlying blurb,
"Coherence and integrity rising in world consciousness as more
and more people around the world practice the Transcendental
Meditation and TM-Sidhi program produces a soothing influence
of unity among nations as every nation rises to invincibility."
Remember, that was a physics article, unifying quantum mechanics
and consciousness.
On p.6, there is a short upbeat article entitled, "Mayors of the world to
invite governors of the age of enlightenment to create an ideal
society in their cities and contribute their share to national
invincibility." This article says, among other things, "As explained
in the last issue of World Government News current world events make
it vital that every mayor quickly establishes the City Parliament of
the Age of Enlightenment....The City Parliament is the new wing
of the city administration with the crucial responsibility to enrich
and strengthen city consciousness and thereby directly increase
coherence in world consciousness."
So it is clear that they are targeting people in governments in
trying to promote their product. Now, if his holiness and his
followers want to present their product as something that makes
some people feel better for reasons that are not particularly
well understood, that is one thing. But all this crap about
quantum mechanics seems to be designed to give TM a legitimacy
that it really does not deserve. Their creation of a "university",
namely MERU, seems to be designed for the same purpose.
In view of such activities, it is pleasant to fantasize that the local
mayors, who probably don't know the difference between a
boson and a moron, could just log in and look up on the
CRACKPOTS.FAQ list that the TM people are eyeball deep in
<barnyard epithet deleted> and deal with them accordingly.
I am not pointing the finger specifically at Prof.Dolmash
but at TM itself. To the extent that these crackpot theories
about physics are the creation of his holiness the Maharishi,
I point the finger at him also. One might argue that his holiness
doesn't post to USENET news groups, but there IS a newsgroup
entitled alt.meditation.transcendental, so I think that the
theories contained in it are fair game to the extent that
they pertain to physics.
This example raises some questions about the nature of a
CRACKPOTS.FAQ. For example, does the list only carry persons
or does it carry doctrines? In the former case, if a crackpot
idea happens to be widely held (for example, religion), does
everyone who posts from that point of view become a candidate
for the list? Alternatively, if doctrines are listed in
CRACKPOTS.FAQ, will those doctrines which are widely believed
and possibly influential (such as the fundamentalist doctrine that the
world is only a few thousand years old or that
evolution never happened or the doctrine (held by the
Hare Krishna movement) that the sun is closer to the earth
than the moon) also wind up on the list?
In the case of the examples mentioned above, I would be pleased
to see them on such a list, but if the mad were organized
(and it appears that they are) and drawing up the lists,
as they seem to do when it comes time to decide on public school
curricula (cf. the Monkey Trial, or the recent trend among
textbook publishers to avoid entirely the controversial issue
of evolution), the theories of which we are proudest might well
wind up on the list.
The trouble with crackpot lists is that they take the substantive
issues, which need to be debated among those who are concerned about
them, and turn them into the political issue of who controls the
list. As we have seen in the recent and not so recent history of
the US, the forces of ignorance and of intolerance often control
a lot of votes, the result of which is that the unthinkable is
instituted as deliberate policy. So I would say, on general
principles, let us not screw around with lists such as CRACKPOT.FAQ.
Incidentally, in case no one noticed, some people involved in TM
founded something called the Natural Law Party (World Government
News has a lot on Natural Law) and ran a presidential candidate
on its platform in the last presidential election. Fortunately
they didn't get elected but they sure screwed up prime time television
with their infomercials.
Allan Adler
ad...@pulsar.cs.wku.edu
P.S. I am serious in my questions about Prof.Lawence H. Dolmash.
Does anyone outside of TM take him seriously as a physicist?
Does he himself really believe the crap that he wrote for
World Government News? Or did he just decide that, the funding
environment being what it is, he might as well get his holiness'
money as anyone else's?
Erik Max Francis
> ]In article <yBZ79c...@alcyone.darkside.com>,
> ]Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.darkside.com> wrote:
>
> ]>Of all the objections you could make against cranks, this seems to me
> ]>to be the weakest. What makes them cranks is that they don't post in
> ]>the right group? If that's the case, the vast majority of
> ]>participants on Usenet are cranks.
>
> Wrong ! Majority of people on the UseNet do indeed post an article or two
> to the irrelevant group. What makes crank the crank is their persistency
> in doing the wrong thing.
Good lord, that was my point.
Mark Schnitzius
> I'd go even further and say that the only people who seriously call
>others crackpots are those who are either too lazy, incompetent or logic
>impaired to assess what one says based solely on the only valid grounds
>there are: logic; but instead look at who says it.
What about calling someone a crackpot if their arguments consistently
defy logic? Do you have a problem with that?
--Mark
Ben Weiner
avoid escalating into a crossposted flamewar]
ad...@pulsar.wku.edu (Allen Adler) writes:
>Let me withhold judgement on the question of the desirability of
>a CRACKPOTS.FAQ. Instead, let us take a concrete example, one which
>deserves to be on any crackpots list involving physics.
[snips]
>P.S. I am serious in my questions about Prof.Lawence H. Dolmash.
>Does anyone outside of TM take him seriously as a physicist?
>Does he himself really believe the crap that he wrote for
>World Government News? Or did he just decide that, the funding
>environment being what it is, he might as well get his holiness'
>money as anyone else's?
I can't speak about Dolmash, but it was my understanding that John
Hagelin, who was chairman of the physics dept. at Maharishi
International University in Iowa (and got a PhD from Harvard), had
done respectable work in supersymmetric high energy theory (insofar as
any work in supersymmetric high energy theory is respectable). It was
some variant of SU(5) I think, flipped SU(5) perhaps. Of course, the
further-out aspects of the Maharishi-endorsed physics are, shall we say,
discounted by the majority of working physicists.
It's always nice when the Maharishi and co. take out a full page ad
in the New York Times which prominently displays the SU(5) Lagrangian,
though.
I oppose the compilation of a sci.physics crackpot faq as I have
previously stated. Extending it to include "crackpots," such as the
TM physicists, who have never posted to sci.physics would be IMHO a
further mistake.
--
"We are all sons of bitches now." -- Bainbridge to Oppenheimer, 7/16/45
Mahipal Singh Virdy
"All things that are, are lights."
mkag...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) writes:
"There exists dedicated newsgroup (alt.sci.physcis.new-theories ) for
posting of the theories deemed nonsensical by the mainstream physics."
Assuming by mainstream physics it is meant "status quo", then ...
I'd just like to point out that "what the mainstream physicists deem as
nonsensical" is entirely a subjective entity. There's no steadfast set
of facts or rules that readily apply or two physicists 100% agree upon.
Besides, it is foolish to expect that everybody out THERE knows WHAT the
Status Quo "a priorily" thinks, believes, etc....
I don't doubt that the Status Quo would rather NOT hear about new ideas
of physics, a field they are expert at, through the Internet. It's part
of the human condition. But you all in the Status Quo (an ill-defined
group if ever there was) who think themselves without fault_in_logic&&math,
answer <me> these:
Where is a person with an even remotely interesting Physics Proposition
to go if not the Internet?
Do you think this person should "heal him/herself" and shut-up?
How is this person to KNOW whether something NEW is even involved?
What if s/he didn't just rediscover something already accepted/discarded?
What if the idea never reached the press of yesteryears? We're not
exactly living in the tailend of a period where all our teachers have
just conveniently solved everything for *US*. We can't just sit back and
relax and praise the set of {Insert names here} peoples.
What IF something new and significant *IS* actually discovered????
Science without calibration isn't. So when you complain about unorthodox
ideas being posted here, you've literally forgotten what science is about
AND how the lines of communication are at last FREE (sort of). In a way,
the Status Quo should actually be thankful that the "cranks" post only
here. It's not like they're taking their ideas of or about physics where
physicists couldn't even be exposed to the falsehoods.
In reality, there are perhaps millions of wrong ideas born and killed
every minute of each day. Maybe, billions. It's astounding! Maybe it's
more effective if Carl Sagan say "BILLIONS"? 8-) It's a task of physics
to weed out potential good ideas from those that are "not even wrong".
%%%% Run = -k*[Tun - Gun (T/2)] %%%%%%%%%% 2 c <me> %%%% |meforce> %%%
Of course, there are CRANKS who can't do without ATTENTION. I don't
think they can be easily cured from the notion that what they are
writing is getting read. Jeez... I write all the time. The idea that
someone might actually READ what I've written, independent of its
subject matter, is quite tempting. But I feel, there are only about a
100 or so people per newsgroup. Does anyone actually have a way of
gauging the number of readers? As such, these newsgruops MAY be useful
for mildly interesting feedback. One still has to get publishing
contracts to make any literary impact.
Being a crank is a personality trait. It has nothing, <i> zero, to do
with the idea itself. An idea stands independent of the personality of
the person discovering it. A crank would be a crank REGARDLESS of the
merits of the idea associated with him/(rarely) her.
Mahipal,
"<me> alwa(y)s changeZ... Only wish I could prove it...
Erik Max Francis
> Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt.
> "All things that are, are lights."
Eep?
Doug Merritt
> But I feel, there are only about a
>100 or so people per newsgroup. Does anyone actually have a way of
>gauging the number of readers?
Quite a few more. And yes, there has been such a method for ages.
See the newsgroup "news.lists" and the regular post there with subject
"USENET Readership report for Jul 95". I excerpt from it below,
showing the physics newsgroups.
Back in the mid 80's I thought this thing (it's called "arbitron")
was fairly accurate. The numbers in it currently look somewhat weird; the
"actual sampled population" looks pretty low, and the "estimated total"
for the most-subscribed group (not shown in my excerpt) also looks low.
Maybe it's not being kept up as much in recent years. I'm not sure.
Or maybe it's very accurate. *shrug* One could ask around in the news.*
groups.
BTW keep in mind that it's well known that most readers are lurkers,
that is, non-posters.
Doug
----- begin excerpt
+-- Estimated total number of people who read the group, worldwide.
| +-- Actual number of readers in sampled population
| | +-- Propagation: how many sites receive this group at all
| | | +-- Recent traffic (messages per month)
| | | | +-- Recent traffic (megabytes per month)
| | | | | +-- Crossposting percentage
| | | | | | +-- Cost ratio: $US/month/rdr
| | | | | | | +-- Share: % of newsrders
| | | | | | | | who read this group.
V V V V V V V V
96 58000 453 76% 5005 8.4 31% 0.10 0.8% sci.physics
728 22000 179 74% 821 1.7 31% 0.05 0.3% sci.physics.fusion
907 19000 156 74% 158 0.4 11% 0.01 0.3% sci.med.physics
1081 16000 175 53% 1226 2.3 42% 0.07 0.3% alt.sci.physics.new-theories
1098 16000 151 64% 116 0.5 19% 0.02 0.3% sci.physics.research
1658 10000 104 59% 462 0.6 54% 0.03 0.2% sci.physics.particle
1659 10000 104 58% 515 0.6 39% 0.03 0.2% sci.physics.electromag
1855 8600 104 49% 173 0.3 6% 0.01 0.2% alt.sci.physics.acoustics
1905 8300 87 57% 202 0.4 7% 0.02 0.1% sci.physics.computational.fluid-dynamics
1975 7900 77 61% 23 0.0 18% 0.00 0.1% sci.physics.accelerators
2923 2800 65 26% 187 0.3 57% 0.03 0.1% alt.sci.physics.plutonium
----- end excerpt
Douglas J. Zare
>[...]
>Where is a person with an even remotely interesting Physics Proposition
>to go if not the Internet?
Such a person should ask a local professor of physics, perhaps paying him
or her for the time and help. Most people who propose revolutionary ideas
do so without even a basic undergraduate understanding of the subject,
and thus have little chance of doing anything except tiring those that do.
Douglas Zare
Mahipal Singh Virdy
>> "All things that are, are lights."
>
>Eep?
>
You mean where did I get that from? You, of course. But I believe that
would be common knowledge for anybody surfing sci.physics. ;-)
You don't always list the translation in your otherwise very cryptic
.sig signoff. Thanks for the phrase. I lights it a lot...
>
>Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max m...@alcyone.darkside.com
>San Jose, CA 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W GIGO, Omega, Psi oo the fourth R _
>H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- ftmfbs kmmfa / \
>_Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt._ Founder SBWF http://www.spies.com/max/ \_/
Mahipal,
<me> alwa(y)s changeZ
Jack Sarfatti
<TITLE>WWW Access Statistics for www.hia.com/pcr</TITLE>
</HEAD>
>
>In article <1995Aug6.2...@news2.den.mmc.com>
>>100 or so people per newsgroup. Does anyone actually have a way of
Here, for comparison is a measure of number of people reading my New
Physics Reviews in one week at http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr<p>
Breaking it down into the specific corporations, universities and
government / military/intelligence organizations tuning in is even
more interesting - but is too long for a single post. Full details
are on my webpage.
>
<BODY>
<H1>WWW Access Statistics for www.hia.com/pcr</H1>
<EM>Last updated: Thu, 03 Aug 1995 22:19:45 (GMT -0700)</EM>
<UL>
<LI><A HREF="#Domain">Total Transfers by Client Domain</A>
<LI><A HREF="#Subdomain">Total Transfers by Reversed Subdomain</A>
</UL>
<H2>Totals for Summary Period: Jul 22 1995 to Aug 3 1995</H2>
<PRE>
Files Transmitted During Summary Period 77209
Bytes Transmitted During Summary Period 449135741
Average Files Transmitted Daily 5939
Average Bytes Transmitted Daily 34548903
</PRE>
<HR>
<HR>
<H2><A NAME="Domain">Total Transfers by Client Domain</A></H2>
<PRE>
%Reqs %Byte Bytes Sent Requests Domain
----- ----- ------------ -------- |------------------------------------
0.02 0.01 46301 17 | ar Argentina
0.15 0.13 571545 113 | at Austria
1.68 1.76 7895719 1299 | au Australia
0.30 0.21 932255 229 | be Belgium
0.00 0.00 10164 3 | bm Bermuda
0.06 0.06 261973 48 | br Brazil
2.56 2.56 11493243 1974 | ca Canada
0.51 0.50 2260416 391 | ch Switzerland
0.03 0.04 186760 21 | cl Chile
0.00 0.00 5015 3 | cr Costa Rica
0.02 0.03 130885 14 | cz Czech Republic
0.92 0.88 3944327 707 | de Germany
0.20 0.20 901736 154 | dk Denmark
0.04 0.06 268752 33 | do Dominican Republic
0.01 0.01 65839 4 | ec Ecuador
0.02 0.01 58881 16 | ee Estonia
0.41 0.47 2132924 320 | es Spain
0.31 0.31 1400089 241 | fi Finland
0.05 0.07 319965 37 | fj Fiji
0.19 0.21 942800 146 | fr France
0.08 0.04 159716 64 | gb Great Britain (UK)
0.23 0.23 1025781 177 | gr Greece
0.11 0.07 324777 85 | hk Hong Kong
0.01 0.01 32388 5 | hr Croatia (Hrvatska)
0.02 0.03 128154 13 | id Indonesia
0.20 0.24 1088201 157 | ie Ireland
0.07 0.05 245037 53 | il Israel
0.03 0.03 125514 22 | is Iceland
0.68 0.59 2641028 525 | it Italy
1.20 0.98 4400699 926 | jp Japan
0.28 0.30 1356390 219 | kr Korea (South)
0.00 0.00 15076 3 | lv Latvia
0.42 0.52 2351162 321 | mx Mexico
0.22 0.18 828654 166 | my Malaysia
0.46 0.38 1709089 353 | nl Netherlands
0.10 0.11 508670 80 | no Norway
0.21 0.14 631995 160 | nz New Zealand (Aotearoa)
0.01 0.03 143841 9 | pl Poland
0.03 0.06 253968 20 | pt Portugal
0.02 0.04 176978 16 | ru Russian Federation
0.58 0.71 3204814 444 | se Sweden
0.06 0.08 365501 50 | sg Singapore
0.00 0.00 1553 2 | si Slovenia
0.00 0.00 4861 2 | su USSR (former)
0.05 0.05 240972 35 | th Thailand
0.29 0.39 1743954 226 | tr Turkey
0.09 0.05 246481 66 | tw Taiwan
1.89 2.12 9499393 1462 | uk United Kingdom
0.48 0.70 3129641 371 | us United States
0.18 0.19 862867 142 | za South Africa
35.69 35.54 159617190 27556 | com US Commercial
14.38 15.58 69997552 11099 | edu US Educational
1.69 1.88 8426487 1302 | gov US Government
0.81 1.09 4912991 622 | mil US Military
14.47 11.51 51710735 11176 | net Network
1.32 1.37 6161101 1023 | org Non-Profit Organization
0.02 0.03 120368 15 | rom
0.33 0.27 1232436 252 | arpa Old style Arpanet
0.00 0.00 3770 3 | keri
0.01 0.02 94148 11 | line4
15.81 16.83 75582219 12206 | unresolved
</body>
</html>
Mahipal Singh Virdy
Douglas J. Zare <za...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>Mahipal Singh Virdy <vi...@pogo.den.mmc.com> wrote:
>>[...]
>>Where is a person with an even remotely interesting Physics Proposition
>>to go if not the Internet?
>>[...]
>
>Such a person should ask a local professor of physics, perhaps paying him
>or her for the time and help. Most people who propose revolutionary ideas
>do so without even a basic undergraduate understanding of the subject,
That's a very bad presumption. You should ask a person's credentials
before rushing to judgement. BTW, I know in *some* cases it's obvious.
>and thus have little chance of doing anything except tiring those that do.
>
>Douglas Zare
I was presupposing that the person would be adequately versed with
physics before taking on the risk of public humiliation. If you review
your history, you will find ample evidence of successful ideas coming
from the educated observers (i.e., Einstein, Farmers who discovered
meteorites, etc.)
The attitude that your words represent is highly narrow minded. There
are far more students of physics than there are teachers/researchers. If
all it takes is a good idea to progress science, then the free thinking
students stand a better chance at creativity. Especially when you
consider most profs are preoccupied "grubbing for grants". It's an
occupational requirement/hazard.
Isn't it a cliche' that in physics one typically scores their best ideas
before the age of 30? So, if you don't know what you've got to offer by
then, you might as well hang it up by then? (Half-Smiley)
Mahipal,
|meforce>: paradox, physics, or poetry? Couldn't be all three...no?
Mahipal Singh Virdy
Jack Sarfatti <sarf...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Here, for comparison is a measure of number of people reading my New
>Physics Reviews in one week at http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr<p>
>Breaking it down into the specific corporations, universities and
>government / military/intelligence organizations tuning in is even
>more interesting - but is too long for a single post. Full details
>are on my webpage.
[Data deleted...]
Thanks.
Funny though... the EYES of BB:Big Brother are upon us....Ooo...
Can't a person just surf the alt.SEXuals without somebody keeping a
tally on the old will(y)? Used to be you could read a book without
having to reveal your identity...They KNOW if you've been reading sci.*
also. Don't EVEN try deny it...
I guess that's progress. Every BIT is accounted for. ;-)
Mahipal,
Hi Mom! It's |me>...
Allen Adler
> I can't speak about Dolmash, but it was my understanding that John
> Hagelin, who was chairman of the physics dept. at Maharishi
> International University in Iowa (and got a PhD from Harvard), had
> done respectable work in supersymmetric high energy theory (insofar as
> any work in supersymmetric high energy theory is respectable). It was
> some variant of SU(5) I think, flipped SU(5) perhaps.
It would be helpful if more of the history here could be explained.
Did Hagelin do the SU(5) work while he was at Maharishi International
University in Iowa? Do physicists believe the story, propagated by
the followers of TM, that Hagelin arrived at the SU(5) theory as a
result of trying to come up with a gauge theory exhibiting features
suggested by Maharishi's vedic teachings? Has Hagelin, since his
involvement with TM, done respectable work? And does Hagelin really
believe this crap about the relation between TM and physics?
> Of course, the
> further-out aspects of the Maharishi-endorsed physics are, shall we say,
> discounted by the majority of working physicists.
Can you elucidate a few? Do you refer to their rejection of the law
of gravity and their claim that they can levitate? Do you refer to
their claim that consciousness is the quantum vacuum state? Do you
refer to their claim that because of this connection with quantum
mechanics, the presence of 1% of the population involved in TM causes
beneficial effects such as improved climate, improved harvests, lower
crime, etc.?
At least one person who markets Maharishi Ayur Veda products claims
that this SU(5) theory is the most popular Theory of Everything.
I am not particularly well informed about what is popular among
physicists and what experimental evidence exists in support of
that which is popular. That is one of the reasons that I chose
to cross post between sci.physics and alt.meditation.transcendental:
so that people who are competent in physics can shed some light on the
discussions that are taking place elsewhere about the Maharishi's theories
about physics. It is for that reason that I am cross posting this
to alt.meditation.transcendental again.
> It's always nice when the Maharishi and co. take out a full page ad
> in the New York Times which prominently displays the SU(5) Lagrangian,
> though.
No, Sir. When the Maharishi does it, it is an insult.
Allan Adler
ad...@pulsar.cs.wku.edu
Ben Weiner
>In article <400tsb$a...@electron.rutgers.edu> bwe...@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben Weiner) writes:
>> I can't speak about Dolmash, but it was my understanding that John
>> Hagelin, who was chairman of the physics dept. at Maharishi
>> International University in Iowa (and got a PhD from Harvard), had
>> done respectable work in supersymmetric high energy theory (insofar as
>> any work in supersymmetric high energy theory is respectable). It was
>> some variant of SU(5) I think, flipped SU(5) perhaps.
>It would be helpful if more of the history here could be explained.
>Did Hagelin do the SU(5) work while he was at Maharishi International
>University in Iowa? Do physicists believe the story, propagated by
>the followers of TM, that Hagelin arrived at the SU(5) theory as a
>result of trying to come up with a gauge theory exhibiting features
>suggested by Maharishi's vedic teachings? Has Hagelin, since his
>involvement with TM, done respectable work? And does Hagelin really
>believe this crap about the relation between TM and physics?
Your tone is a little belligerent. Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
To answer your questions:
1. I don't know.
2. It doesn't matter what inspired the theory. It matters whether
the theory works or not. Kekule is said to have been inspired to
realize the circular structure of benzene after a dream of snakes
biting their tails. Of course, the structure fit the evidence,
which was the important thing from a scientific point of view.
3. I don't know. A literature search shows him as author or co-author
on 9 papers in physics journals in the last 5 years including one in
Phys Rev Letters. PRL is usually but not always a respectable journal.
4. You should be asking him, not me.
>> Of course, the
>> further-out aspects of the Maharishi-endorsed physics are, shall we say,
>> discounted by the majority of working physicists.
>Can you elucidate a few? Do you refer to their rejection of the law
>of gravity and their claim that they can levitate? Do you refer to
>their claim that consciousness is the quantum vacuum state? Do you
>refer to their claim that because of this connection with quantum
>mechanics, the presence of 1% of the population involved in TM causes
>beneficial effects such as improved climate, improved harvests, lower
>crime, etc.?
No, I can't elucidate a few, for crying out loud. Obviously you
know more about it than I do. The only claims I was familiar with
were the levitation and the meditation-by-square-root-of-1%-of-earth's-
population. (I'm fairly sure it's the square root. I've always been
bothered by that square root, on dimensional analysis grounds.)
>At least one person who markets Maharishi Ayur Veda products claims
>that this SU(5) theory is the most popular Theory of Everything.
So? Would you buy anything from someone who claims to have a Theory
of Everything? Including any physicist, legit or not? Much less
someone who claims that such a Theory should add to the efficacy of their
products? (I assume that the products in question are not, say,
particle accelerators.)
I note that cigarette advertisements implicitly suggest that smoking
will make you look sophisticated and healthy, and surround you with
glamorous friends. Whether you choose to believe this is up to you.
>I am not particularly well informed about what is popular among
>physicists and what experimental evidence exists in support of
>that which is popular. That is one of the reasons that I chose
>to cross post between sci.physics and alt.meditation.transcendental:
>so that people who are competent in physics can shed some light on the
>discussions that are taking place elsewhere about the Maharishi's theories
>about physics. It is for that reason that I am cross posting this
>to alt.meditation.transcendental again.
Physicists have a duty to protect the public from the misapplication
of science and technology, and a duty to see that the public is not
duped by false scientific claims. Physicists do not, however, have
as strong a duty to protect the public from its own gullibility.
There is a rule of thumb in consumer protection law which may be
applicable here. If you sell me a "foot-long sandwich," the law requires
that it be a full 12 inches long. But if I walk into a store in
Denver and order a "Mile-High Sandwich," I have no reason to expect
to be handed an sandwich which is 5280 feet high.
>> It's always nice when the Maharishi and co. take out a full page ad
>> in the New York Times which prominently displays the SU(5) Lagrangian,
>> though.
>No, Sir. When the Maharishi does it, it is an insult.
I think you display an insufficiently finely honed appreciation of the
absurd. But I hope I have helped. May I remind you again not to
taunt Happy Fun Ball.
--
"A megillah, told by a nudnik, full of tsimmes and signifying bubkes."
Jack Sarfatti
Weiner) writes:
>
>--
>"A megillah, told by a nudnik, full of tsimmes and signifying bubkes."
>
Please translate the Yiddish for the Goyim. "Bubbkes" and Tsimmes and
"Nudnik" I think I know. Not sure of precise meaning of "megillah"
Johan Wevers
>At least one person who markets Maharishi Ayur Veda products claims
>that this SU(5) theory is the most popular Theory of Everything.
Well, I believe it _was_ some years agoo but I didn't hold a poll.
But nowadays the SU(5) theories have been ruled out because they
predicted a value for proton decay that was higher than observed
(in fact, I don't recall someone has ever seen any proton decay with
those detectors).
--
ir. J.C.A. Wevers || The only nature of reality is physics.
joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl || http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
Finger joh...@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key. PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1
Jack Sarfatti
Adler) writes:
>
>> Of course, the further-out aspects of the Maharishi-endorsed
physics are, shall we say, discounted by the majority of working
physicists.
>
>Can you elucidate a few? Do you refer to their rejection of the law
>of gravity and their claim that they can levitate?
We all reject that. In Bohm's version of quantum gravity + my Ansatz
that the "wave function of the universe" = Hawking's "Mind of God"
that obeys the Wheeler-Dwitt equation which is literally beyond
spacetime in superspace, there are new possibilities.
The guidance condition on the actual evolving 3-geometry of our
universe is what is in time. It is affected by the Mind of God which
guides it - but in orthodox theory is not guided by the 3-geometry.
God is the unmoved mover in orthodox quantum gravity sans the feed-back
control loop I have introduced which allow us to modify the Mind of God
as creatures inside space-time.
If advanced Yogis are able to use the control loop they could levitate
in principle in Bohm's thoery - but I doubt the claims of TM in this
regard. Their claims seem silly. What is possible for an advanced
civilization (e.g. UFOs?) is another matter for research.
>Do you refer to
>their claim that consciousness is the quantum vacuum state?
This is possibly true for a small minority of credentialed physicists
like Brian Josephson, Roger Penrose, Henry Stapp, Nick Herbert, Fred
Allan Wolf, Amit Goswami, Hal Puthoff, myself and others.
>Do you
>refer to their claim that because of this connection with quantum
>mechanics, the presence of 1% of the population involved in TM causes
>beneficial effects such as improved climate, improved harvests, lower
>crime, etc.?
This claim is similar to H Schmidt's in Henry Stapps letter in July
1995 Physics Today that I recently posted.. It should be checked by
several independent groups.
>
>At least one person who markets Maharishi Ayur Veda products claims
>that this SU(5) theory is the most popular Theory of Everything.
>I am not particularly well informed about what is popular among
>physicists and what experimental evidence exists in support of
>that which is popular.
SU(5) is a GUT not a TOE. Also it doesn't really work.
Toby Bartels
>Ben Weiner (bwe...@electron.rutgers.edu) wrote:
>>"A megillah, told by a nudnik, full of tsimmes and signifying bubkes."
>Please translate the Yiddish for the Goyim. "Bubbkes" and Tsimmes and
>"Nudnik" I think I know. Not sure of precise meaning of "megillah"
A megillah is a story, but this is poetry,
and word for word translations are less than ideal.
It is common opinion that the least imperfect English translation
was perfomed by the Rennaissance scholar Will Shaxpere in 1605.
He incorporated it into his play _Macbeth_,
in lines 26 - 28 of the v. scene of the V. act.
-- Toby
to...@ugcs.caltech.edu
Jack Sarfatti
Bartels) writes:
>
>Jack Sarfatti (sarf...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>>Ben Weiner (bwe...@electron.rutgers.edu) wrote:
>
bubkes."
>
>>"Nudnik" I think I know. Not sure of precise meaning of "megillah"
>
>A megillah is a story, but this is poetry,
>and word for word translations are less than ideal.
>It is common opinion that the least imperfect English translation
>was perfomed by the Rennaissance scholar Will Shaxpere in 1605.
>He incorporated it into his play _Macbeth_,
>in lines 26 - 28 of the v. scene of the V. act.
>
>
too many posts on on sci.physics which should be called
sci.shmysics.
Quote for the day is Paul Kantner's remark at Jerry Garcia's
funeral "San Francisco is 49 square miles totally surrounded by
reality." see http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr/goldrev.html
Ben Weiner
>In <40g63k$k...@electron.rutgers.edu> bwe...@electron.rutgers.edu (Ben
>Weiner) writes:
[one of my .sigs]
>>--
>>"A megillah, told by a nudnik, full of tsimmes and signifying bubkes."
>Please translate the Yiddish for the Goyim. "Bubbkes" and Tsimmes and
>"Nudnik" I think I know. Not sure of precise meaning of "megillah"
For someone who claims to be descended from and inspired by Rashi your
scholarship is, shall we say, peccable. ("Peccable" is the opposite
of impeccable.) You know what's the Book of Esther? It's a megillah,
boychik. I'll spare you the whole megillah, since Toby Bartels has
already given the answer.
In exchange, you can lay off the "Posters to sci.physics behave poorly
because they don't have liberal educations like mine own" line.
Har, har, har.
--
I learned three things in Zurich during the war. I wrote them down.
Firstly, you're either a revolutionary or you're not, and if you're
not you might as well be an artist as anything else. Secondly, if you
can't be an artist, you might as well be a revolutionary ...
I forget the third thing. -- "Travesties," Tom Stoppard
Mike Doughney
In article <ADLER.95A...@pulsar.wku.edu>,
Allen Adler <ad...@pulsar.wku.edu> wrote:
>
>Let me withhold judgement on the question of the desirability of
>a CRACKPOTS.FAQ. Instead, let us take a concrete example, one which
>deserves to be on any crackpots list involving physics. I have
>before me the October 1978 issue (#10) of World Government News, an
>official publication of his holiness the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's
>Transcendental Meditation. In it, we find an article entitled,
>"The Physics of Unity," by Lawrence H. Domash, Chancellor and
>Professor of Physics at Maharishi European Research University (MERU).
>I'm told that Professor Domash got his Ph.D. in physics from Princeton.
<very large snip>
>P.S. I am serious in my questions about Prof.Lawence H. Dolmash.
>Does anyone outside of TM take him seriously as a physicist?
>Does he himself really believe the crap that he wrote for
>World Government News? Or did he just decide that, the funding
>environment being what it is, he might as well get his holiness'
>money as anyone else's?
Just for the record, Lawrence Domash was for a time President
of Maharishi International University; I have an MIU document from
1980 which includes a greeting from him with that title. I have
another in 1981 that shows him only as "Professor of Physics" in a
presentation, although it's not clear from the document whether he was
live or on videotape.
At least one participant on a.m.t. has attributed him as the
originator of a lot of this so-called "superradiance" baloney, which
was snapped up by Mahesh and made the basis of a large part of the TM
movement's science, I mean, theology. It's become the basis of the TM
movement's propaganda campaign to obtain government funding to support
this cult, to ostensibly maintain many thousands of "Yogic flyers" to
create "coherence in consciousness."
The name of Dr. Domash doesn't appear on a 1983 document, and it
appears that he left MIU for parts unknown in the early 80's. So it's
not clear that he would today endorse this level of crackpotism. Some
people who once believed this stuff, as I once did, eventually grow up
and get a clue, and perhaps he did too.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQB1AwUBMDLPv39g9f+5TwWtAQFhHQL+I+N1nT6oQ5aytiIiGU20svQkglvA2C7G
tqjZQMTjag+sf0QiOOCeQ9vBjv477WkSWhI04inve8aq/pkH1a0fgvPWAU86kPA1
ZClY6+2pSOon0YaE7uGcZI4fjkhkmsci
=YxIj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Finger mi...@access.digex.net for public key. mi...@sadie.digex.net
Copyright (c) 1995 Michael T. Doughney All Rights Reserved. http://mtd.com
Acuna108
talking came from then-not-so-clear quantum physics theories. He was
literally kicked out of the movement (booted out the back door at
Seelisberg!) for something (I can't remember now) and became a hassidic
jew (he was a jew, became hassidic), following the rabi that died a while
ago, the "messiah" one.
fla_v...@emuvax.emich.edu
I always figured Larry Domash was a fucking asshole. Most of the M.I.U. elite
were fucking assholes, but he was A number one!
Allen Adler
(Acuna108) writes:
> Mr. Domash did create the whole superradiance stuff, but a lot of his
> talking came from then-not-so-clear quantum physics theories. He was
> literally kicked out of the movement (booted out the back door at
> Seelisberg!) for something (I can't remember now) and became a hassidic
> jew (he was a jew, became hassidic), following the rabi that died a while
> ago, the "messiah" one.
It is interesting to know the subsequent history of Chancellor
Domash of Maharishi European Research University. More details
are welcome.
The reason I'm replying to this, however, is that one cannot apologize
for Domash's ridiculous writings about quantum mechanics,
consciousness and the attempted justification of TM evangelism
and lobbying in terms of theoretical physics. When Domash
published the article I quoted from World Government News (1978),
it was apparent to me that this was sheer lunacy. I am not
highly trained in physics and I didn't need to be.
One simply cannot defend what Domash wrote on the grounds that
the relevant quantum theories were not well understood. It is
hard to think of any explanation for his writing it other than
either lunacy or deliberate deception.
I am still interested in knowing whether there is any substance
to the TM claims that Hagelin's work in physics was in any
way motivated by TM and whether he himself takes seriously
the claims that the SU(5) gauge theory in any way reflects
Vedic philosophy. TM seems to be trying to assert that
he does.
Allan Adler
ad...@pulsar.cs.wku.edu
Lawson English
: Mr. Domash did create the whole superradiance stuff, but a lot of his
: talking came from then-not-so-clear quantum physics theories. He was
: literally kicked out of the movement (booted out the back door at
: Seelisberg!) for something (I can't remember now) and became a hassidic
: jew (he was a jew, became hassidic), following the rabi that died a while
: ago, the "messiah" one.
One of the (formerly) local TM teachers here in Tucson is a good friend
of Domash's. I don't know why he left MIU, but AFAIK, he left more
because he felt that he'd destroyed his career in Physics due to
association with MIU, rather than some big todo on Maharishi's part.
You never know. It might have been a combination of things.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
eng...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
/ / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English
: In article <40vd4r$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, acun...@aol.com (Acuna108) writes:
: > Mr. Domash did create the whole superradiance stuff, but a lot of his
: > talking came from then-not-so-clear quantum physics theories. He was
: > literally kicked out of the movement (booted out the back door at
: > Seelisberg!) for something (I can't remember now) and became a hassidic
: > jew (he was a jew, became hassidic), following the rabi that died a while
: > ago, the "messiah" one.
: I always figured Larry Domash was a fucking asshole. Most of the M.I.U. elite
: were fucking assholes, but he was A number one!
I recall hearing him referred to as "Mr. Personality." Wasn't he
President of MIU until Bevan took over?
Lawson English
[snipt]
: I am still interested in knowing whether there is any substance
: to the TM claims that Hagelin's work in physics was in any
: way motivated by TM and whether he himself takes seriously
: the claims that the SU(5) gauge theory in any way reflects
: Vedic philosophy. TM seems to be trying to assert that
: he does.
The TM organization can claim whatever it likes.
What *I* claim is that Hagelin launched the revival of SU(5) because it
fit in with what Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said that a Western Cosmological
theory would need to agree with his (MMY's) interpretation of Vedic
Cosmology.
Whether this is coincidence, or reflects some fundamental agreement
between the Vedic tradition and Theoretical Physics, I have no idea.
Jack Sarfatti
w...@xc.org (Bill E) writes:
>
>In article <1995Aug19...@emuvax.emich.edu>,
>fla_v...@emuvax.emich.edu wrote:
>
> > I always figured Larry Domash was a fucking asshole. Most of the
M.I.U.
> > elite
> > were fucking assholes, but he was A number one!
>
doesn't it?
Are you just being an ignoramous? Do you have any other forms of
expression in your pea-brained vocabulary? Were you there? Did someone
molest you? If you have any detailed experience with Domash that would
be interesting. But if you can only curse profanities like some
ill-bred brain-damaged wino affronting respectable people on the
street, then you are boring us. You have one more chance to pass the
final. "F!" says the Elitist Professor from Hell. :-)
--
Jack Sarfatti, The Singing Visionary Physicist, sarf...@ix.netcom.com
"The hostility of my critics is the customary human reaction when confronted with innovation
--a practise refined by the Chinese emperors, who used to execute messengers bringing bad news."
Marshall McLuhan
http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr WARP the e-zine of Post-Futurismo,.
Advertise your business with us. Plug in and play with us.
PaulWil008
let me interject some facts and rumors:
Fact: Larry was the second of the three Presidents of MIU. Maharishi put
him in this spot because the first President, Robert Keith Wallace (now
Executive Vice-President), got himself into trouble with the Movement in
some skiffle that I've heard about but forgotten. He had been chairman of
the physics department. Maharishi called him "the most brilliant physicist
in the world," due to the SCI/physics correlations so much in debate in
this thread.
He wasn't a very effective administrator, but was apparently the best
available man for the job at the time. That was a very slow time for MIU.
Rumor: my understanding of Larry's demise was that he, for reasons I have
never heard, up and fired all but one of the original board of trustees,
the exception being Josephine Fauerso, who is still on the board.
Maharishi was very upset and removed him from the position. Bevan, who had
been at the Capital for awhile, was installed as the third President.
Larry toured the country fundraising in 1981. When he finally left MIU,
the rumors were about as far flung as those about Deepak in recent years.
My profs, who all maintained contact with him and didn't much want to
discuss it, all said that he was doing work with a private fiber-optics
company on the east coast. Rumors said that he was allergic to MIU's
ragweed.
I never heard anything about his becoming a Rabbinic Jew or following
anyone. I met him on tour in 1981, and even then he was planning to write
a book called, "Discovering the Unmanifest in Physics and Consciousness."
Having studied physics, *I* feel that the article in World Government News
makes sense, even though it non-rigorously extends physics. It does so
little more than many of the current popular books on physics and -- take
your pick -- God, consciousness, Eastern philosophy. These books are by
people like Rodger Penrose and Paul Davies and Amit Goswami, and haven't
raised any big stink in the professional physics community. Also, to
really understand Domash's article, you need to read it in the context of
the whole issue, and ideally all the issues of World Government News. He
didn't spell everything out in the article, but many ideas, such as the
Maharishi Effect, were explained elsewhere.
Besides, nothing he wrote then is really significant now. John Hagelin's
recent work is the only important standard to judge any attempted
correlations between consciousness and physics. Domash was just starting
to dabble in these ideas.
If scientists never extend theories, science will never grow. I know that
to some people, this kind of speculative process is distasteful, but it is
basic to the development of knowledge.
As for John Hagelin, his two monographs on physics and consciousness, "Is
the Unified Field Consciousness?" and "Restructuring Physics from its
Foundation in Light of Maharishi's Vedic Science," rigorously extend many
of the themes that Larry originated and then develop others based on his
own expertise.
John will tell anyone interested that he got the inspiration to pull the
old Flipped SU(5) theory off the shelf and reconsider it from a
super-symmetric perspective on the basis of a Vedic Science-inspired
conviction. That was that the only way to develop a fully-satisfactory
Grand Unified Theory was to appeal to principles emerging in fully Unified
Theories, using the SCI principle of "the highest first."
So, he took the principle of supersymmetry emerging in unified field
theory and applied it to Flipped SU(5), and got SUSY Flipped SU(5) GUT.
Upon co-development with his CERN colleagues, he found this theory to be
robust and to solve all the outstanding problems of other GUTS.
As to any questions about how seriously John takes this stuff, I know
personally that he stands behind these ideas to his core. He has risked
his whole professional life on being proven right in his assertions about
physics and consciousness and the Maharishi Effect, and, if proven right,
will be the most famous physicist in history.
Anyone who summarily dismisses Hagelin's and Domash's cerebrations needs
to get up with the times and read some of the serious current books on
these topics. Especially since the Aspect experiment proved quantum
mechanics to be correct, the basis for saying that consciousness is an
essential part of physical phenomenon is hard to deny. Maharishi's take
on this is an extension and not really a very big one.
I hope that no detractors will discount my opinions on the basis of my MIU
exposure to physics. MIU's program isn't kooky. It addresses the
discipline exactly like any other university, but in addtion associates
main principles of physics with main principles of SCI. The idea is that
SCI is a foundational discipline, being the study of consciousness, and
that *any* applied discipline will reflect the general principles of
consciousness. If you accept the tenets of SCI, then the connections make
sense. If you don't accept the tenets, then, no, the connections won't
make sense.
Paul Wilson
***********************************************************
Paul Wilson, Indianapolis
Macmillan Computer Publishing
Natural Law Party State Chairman
(317) 895-0365
The continuity of change is the key
to the eternity of the universe. -- I Ching
***********************************************************
PaulWil008
hassidic.
Paul
PaulWil008
referred to Domash's theorizing as crackpot within sentences of declaring
religious beliefs as crackpot as well.
That seems like an inappropriate label for articles of faith and seems to
imply that "crackpot" is anything Mr Adler doesn't agree with.
If you want "crackpot," read a good layman's book on new physics, such as
"Dancing Wu Li Masters," and check out the incredible strangeness and
counter-intuitiveness of virtually all of quantum mechanics. Claims like
Domash was making in his article were not a stitch less weird than any of
the high-weirded accepted as canonical truth by the experts on q.m.
And, as Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner has written, "Physicists have found
it impossible to give a satisfactory description of atomic phenomena
without reference to the consciousness."
The only difference Hagelin, Domash, and the other MIU physicists with
their peers is that they are willing to entertain a line of reasoning that
is screaming at all physicists to consider and that only they are willing
to deeply probe.
Paul Wilson
Jack Sarfatti
English) writes:
>
>Allen Adler (ad...@pulsar.wku.edu) wrote:
>[snipt]
>: I am still interested in knowing whether there is any substance
>: to the TM claims that Hagelin's work in physics was in any
>: way motivated by TM and whether he himself takes seriously
>: the claims that the SU(5) gauge theory in any way reflects
>: Vedic philosophy. TM seems to be trying to assert that
>: he does.
>
>
>The TM organization can claim whatever it likes.
>
>What *I* claim is that Hagelin launched the revival of SU(5) because
it
>fit in with what Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said that a Western
Cosmological
>theory would need to agree with his (MMY's) interpretation of Vedic
>Cosmology.
>
>
>Whether this is coincidence, or reflects some fundamental agreement
>between the Vedic tradition and Theoretical Physics, I have no idea.
>
that the writers of the Vedas, The Bible, The Koran et-al were
actually precognitively remote viewing future advanced technology.
Bob Kovsky
>Jack Sarfatti (sarf...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >Whether this is coincidence, or reflects some fundamental agreement
>
>the human mind while in mystical states is similar to the behavior of the
>"Cosmic Mind" comprised of the interacting SuperString field.
>
>The idea being that if the mystical state of "Pure COnsciousness" is
>indeed a human-level communion-with/apprehension-of some kind of "Cosmic
>Awareness" corresponding to the self-interacting
>SuperString field, then a decent description of how this human-level Pure
>Consciousness behaves might also be a decent description of how the
>cosmic-level Pure Consciousness behaves, since both are consciousness in
>its "pure" state.
...
>ANd his more recent essay develops the theme even further by attempting
>to find correspondence between the sequence of states/modes of
>consciousness that give rise to material reality according to the Vedic
>tradition, and the various fundamental forces and particles of modern
>Physics.
You have DONE IT! Only upon reading your Totally Brilliant
contribution, did I come to understand that Sarfatti has PLAGIARIZED the
entire notion of non-conservation of probability from Tantric Sources.
Indeed, bindu (point-contact) between consciousness (Purusha) and matter
(Prakriti) is indeed the rotation of the gauge transformation about a
virtual origin and THUS introduces deviations from the constraints of a
Hilbert space.
I have automatically written the foregoing after prolonged
chanting of the following mantra from the Maharnava:
HRIM SRIM KRIM PARAMESVARI SVAHA
that contains the concept of non-conservation of probability as the world
springs from the Golden-Embryo, the cosmic egg, Hiranya-garbha, that like
Sarfatti must be slightly cracked to bring forth the new age.
Only now do I understand what Heisenberg meant, when he remarked
to me on the escalator in Macy's, "This thing goes up."
Lawson English
: In <4163io$o...@nnrp3.primenet.com> eng...@primenet.com (Lawson
: English) writes:
[snipt]
: >Whether this is coincidence, or reflects some fundamental agreement
: >between the Vedic tradition and Theoretical Physics, I have no idea.
: The only way such an agreement would make sense if it were the case
: that the writers of the Vedas, The Bible, The Koran et-al were
: actually precognitively remote viewing future advanced technology.
Actually, I had in mind something like a possibility that the behavior of
the human mind while in mystical states is similar to the behavior of the
"Cosmic Mind" comprised of the interacting SuperString field.
The idea being that if the mystical state of "Pure COnsciousness" is
indeed a human-level communion-with/apprehension-of some kind of "Cosmic
Awareness" corresponding to the self-interacting
SuperString field, then a decent description of how this human-level Pure
Consciousness behaves might also be a decent description of how the
cosmic-level Pure Consciousness behaves, since both are consciousness in
its "pure" state.
In fact, that *is* Hagelin's premise, or so I understand.
Certainly, the essay titled "IS consciousness the Unified Field?" seems
to present this view.
ANd his more recent essay develops the theme even further by attempting
to find correspondence between the sequence of states/modes of
consciousness that give rise to material reality according to the Vedic
tradition, and the various fundamental forces and particles of modern
Physics.
fla_v...@emuvax.emich.edu
> In article <1995Aug19...@emuvax.emich.edu>,
> fla_v...@emuvax.emich.edu wrote:
>
> > I always figured Larry Domash was a fucking asshole. Most of the M.I.U.
> > elite
> > were fucking assholes, but he was A number one!
>
> Gee... makes you want to hear more of what this guy has to say, doesn't it?
Your irony is well taken, but misses the point, which is that the M.I.U.
hierarchy was and probably still composed of fucking assholes, just that. I
suppose I could have been clearer by saying "idiots" or "charlatans," but why
bother?
Jack Sarfatti
>
>
> You have DONE IT! Only upon reading your Totally Brilliant
>contribution, did I come to understand that Sarfatti has PLAGIARIZED
the entire notion of non-conservation of probability from Tantric
>Sources.
I have not "PLAGARIZED". I have never read any Tantric Sources. But
I may be in direct contact with The Source. Of course Kovksy is
bull-shitting with meaningless word salad below.
>Indeed, bindu (point-contact) between consciousness (Purusha) and
>matter (Prakriti) is indeed the rotation of the gauge transformation
>about a virtual origin and THUS introduces deviations from the
>constraints of a Hilbert space.
The above paragraph is not real physics. A global gauge transformation
does not introduce deviations from constraints etc. If the Action is
invariant under such a transformation then there is a conserved
"charge" -- that is Noether's theorem.
>
> I have automatically written the foregoing after prolonged
>chanting of the following mantra from the Maharnava:
>
> HRIM SRIM KRIM PARAMESVARI SVAHA
>
>that contains the concept of non-conservation of probability as the
world
>springs from the Golden-Embryo, the cosmic egg, Hiranya-garbha, that
like Sarfatti must be slightly cracked to bring forth the new age.
>
There is some poetic resonance in that last image.
> Only now do I understand what Heisenberg meant, when he remarked
>to me on the escalator in Macy's, "This thing goes up."
It sounds like something the Salvador Dali Lama said. Just think about
this. It is going down backwards in time with negative energy.
--
Jack Sarfatti, The Singing Visionary Physicist, sarf...@ix.netcom.com
"I'm completely ready to junk any statement I've ever made about any subject
if .... I discover it isn't contributing to an understanding of the problem."
Marshall McLuhan -- Advertise your business on our WEB pages at
http://www.hia.com/hia/pcr
WARP the e-zine of Post-Futurismo.
Plug in and play with us Dancing Wu Li Web Masters.
Jack Sarfatti
English) writes:
>
>Jack Sarfatti (sarf...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <4163io$o...@nnrp3.primenet.com> eng...@primenet.com (Lawson
>: English) writes:
>[snipt]
>: >Whether this is coincidence, or reflects some fundamental agreement
>: >between the Vedic tradition and Theoretical Physics, I have no
idea.
>: >
>: The only way such an agreement would make sense if it were the case
>: that the writers of the Vedas, The Bible, The Koran et-al were
>: actually precognitively remote viewing future advanced technology.
>
>
>
>Actually, I had in mind something like a possibility that the behavior
of the human mind while in mystical states is similar to the behavior
of the "Cosmic Mind" comprised of the interacting SuperString field.
>
Well I think the Cosmic Mind is the Quantum Wave Function of the
Universe. What is it about the Super String field that is crucial?
If the SuperString is the pre-geometry of spacetime then I suppose what
you say may have some relevance.
>
>Certainly, the essay titled "Is consciousness the Unified Field?"
seems to present this view.
The answer is NO in Bohm's ontology where the word "field" refers to
classical fields. Consciousness is the quantum wave function of these
classical fields in the presence of back-reaction of the classical
field on said wave function. This back reaction transcends orthodox
quantum field theory in much the same way that general relativity
transcends special relativity. "back-reaction" is analogous to
"curvature" and it is a measure of the degree of consciousness.
>to find correspondence between the sequence of states/modes of
>consciousness that give rise to material reality according to the
>Vedic tradition, and the various fundamental forces and particles of
>modern physics.
In the Bohm ontology the only the fields exist on an equal basis with
the wavefunctions. The fields are matter and the wave functions are
mind-stuff which only becomes conscious in the presence of
non-vanishing back-reaction.
Thomas Marsh
then became the Tzadik (holey guy) of the Labavitch sect of Chasidim (mystical antiquarian right-wing jewry).
He said that the Messiah would come in his lifetime, which after his death was ad-hock'ed to mean
something other than physical death. ?? He did many respactable things, though.. most notably introduced
the use of technology to them. (sorry for the non-physics post here)
-thomas
thomas...@ccm.jf.intel.com
The Homeless Mathematician
Date: 22 Aug 1995 00:58:50 GMT
From: sarf...@ix.netcom.com (Jack Sarfatti )
writes:
>Certainly, the essay titled "Is consciousness the Unified Field?"
seems to present this view.
The answer is NO in Bohm's ontology where the word "field" refers to
classical fields. Consciousness is the quantum wave function of these
classical fields in the presence of back-reaction of the classical
field on said wave function. This back reaction transcends orthodox
quantum field theory in much the same way that general relativity
transcends special relativity. "back-reaction" is analogous to
"curvature" and it is a measure of the degree of consciousness.
Correct. I would love to hear more about this "back-reaction" - would the term
"empathy" approximate the description. Oh! In my model, the specific "curvature"
you mentioned would only correspond to the "analytical" consciousness.
====================================================================
"The Form and Substance of All Objects must be respected with equal dignity."
----- http://haven.ios.com/~rmt/fs.html
S Ralph
Lawson English (eng...@primenet.com) wrote:
: Acuna108 (acun...@aol.com) wrote:
: : Mr. Domash did create the whole superradiance stuff, but a lot of his
: : ago, the "messiah" one.
<snip>
: ???
: One of the (formerly) local TM teachers here in Tucson is a good friend
: of Domash's. I don't know why he left MIU, but AFAIK, he left more
: because he felt that he'd destroyed his career in Physics due to
: association with MIU, rather than some big todo on Maharishi's part.
I heard a rumor that he had a choice between God and marriage, and this was
the reason he left.
: You never know. It might have been a combination of things.
The TM movement is a place for rumorurs that are quite irrelevant. However,
I never caught any hint of friction aafter he left, unlike six-pack
chopper
Steve Ralph
A
A
: --