Incoming

Discussions in the vein that would most interest those looking for the "meat and potatoes" of Townsend Brown's scientific work.

Re: Incoming

Postby G-Man » Sat Apr 16, 2016 7:29 pm

Yep, I think I'll go for barricading myself in my flat, climbing onto the roof and throwing my own shit at the police. Hopefully they'll incarcerate me rather than shoot me.
ύλη είναι το μοτέρ

"Il faut savoir tout envisager mais surtout ne rien croire" Aimé Michel

"Se non capite qualcosa, sbarazzarsi di esso"
User avatar
G-Man
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin failt du

Re: Incoming

Postby fruitbat » Sat Apr 16, 2016 10:22 pm

I've got a mate who makes a really decent living off being bipolar.
He gets paid hansomely for it, and now they are even letting him order his choice of psychiatric medicines, so yes your approach could work...
I've been close to envying your life, what with your traindriving job and beautiful landscape.
If it ever does get really unbearable for you, you can call on me and I'll lend you my IQ score of 236* in an effort to help.
It is a known fact that sometimes a stranger can see solutions and angles that you cannot.
I believe there is a point where "whining" is actually just talking about things in an effort to find solutions.
Brer Fruitbat.

* Because this is sensitive personal information this value has been obscured.
Never gIve up. Never surrender. - Commander Peter Quincy Taggart NSEA "Protector"
User avatar
fruitbat
 
Posts: 3441
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:59 pm
Location: Central UK.

Re: Incoming

Postby Linda Brown » Sat Apr 16, 2016 11:33 pm

I just wish I could really tell you how special I believe all of you are....
From the Shadow of Giant Rock
User avatar
Linda Brown
 
Posts: 15046
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: Incoming

Postby mark moody » Sat Apr 16, 2016 11:38 pm

Have faith lil people.
I'm not suicidal nor am I nuts.
Chew on this for a minute.
I will be ordering some more Bahnson material this week.
Is GOD good or what?
I'm promised that it will be about a month due to the source being busy as hell.
image.jpg
image.jpg (93.56 KiB) Viewed 403 times

Mark
User avatar
mark moody
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:09 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Incoming

Postby mark moody » Sun Apr 17, 2016 12:51 am

image.jpg
image.jpg (60.94 KiB) Viewed 398 times
User avatar
mark moody
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 11:09 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: Incoming

Postby Linda Brown » Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:49 am

now there is a name I had not seen before....

In 1956 Dad went to EUROPE for those tests of his Effect in a vacuum....but when he came home he did not stay out in the country with us...as I write in my book...I did not see him again for an entire year...." And I missed him every single day"

Now, as an adult I realize that he had a staunch and important reason for that....he did not pull us together until the spring of the following year when he had us join him in central Florida (Umatilla).

your letter gives us a much better idea of what Agnew Bahnson was working on months before Dad moved to NC To join his team ( I think that it was late summer of 1957)

FASCINATING.

Linda
From the Shadow of Giant Rock
User avatar
Linda Brown
 
Posts: 15046
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:08 pm

Re: Incoming

Postby re-rose rose » Sun Apr 17, 2016 3:47 pm

Yay, Mark!
Imagine a "Hoover" smiley here...
rose
re-rose rose
 
Posts: 435
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:11 pm

Re: Incoming

Postby G-Man » Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:30 pm

Debussy, Stravinsky, Bach and Weird Science ponderings for me :)
ύλη είναι το μοτέρ

"Il faut savoir tout envisager mais surtout ne rien croire" Aimé Michel

"Se non capite qualcosa, sbarazzarsi di esso"
User avatar
G-Man
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin failt du

Re: Incoming

Postby nate » Wed Apr 20, 2016 10:42 pm

Hi Mark. I believe that Bahnson letter is reproduced in the online edition of the Chapel Hill conference book. http://www.edition-open-access.de/sources/5/3/

Fascinating science history, of course. And once again I wonder just what happened to all those young physics wunderkinds who, mostly, went on to do groundbreaking but somehow not Earth-shattering research, and left the gravity problem looking much more complex and tangled than they found it.

It might well be that gravity really just is incomprehensible by any human mind. At least that seems to be the prevailing consensus by the string theory folks - with the multiverse emerging as 'the answer you give when there is no answer'.

That's an extremely disappointing answer, though, so my natural instinct is to say 'maybe GR and QM don't fit together because one or both is wrong'. But that's still a forbidden thing to say in a university. The orthodoxy is that 'we already have two correct theories' and everything new must fit them.

The epicycles are obvious, and yet they do predict a whole mass of data, just as geocentrism did. Just wonder how long it will take for the vital Copernican insight, whatever it is, to appear.

I still find it hard to understand how an outsider revolutionary like Bahnson with Townsend, Babson and Space Brothers on one arm could have the DeWitts and Wheeler, with their very much mainstream and sterile gravity theories, on the other. I guess it just wasn't obvious in 1957 that the mathematical approach to gravity *was* going to be so disappointing. 1957-1969 were an arc of exponential scientific progress and optimism in the USA; the sky, literally, seemed wide open. It didn't seem so strange then that if mankind had gone from powered fight in the 1900s to satellites in the 1950, that we might well have gravity ships and hyperspace jumps by the 2000s. And Star Trek (1966-67) came right in the middle of that 'Golden Age of General Relatvity' (1964-1974, per Kip Thorne: https://books.google.com/books?id=yLy4b ... &q&f=false ).

But around about 1975, that cosmological Golden Age lost its shine, and oddly enough that's right about when the 'weird physics underground', with a darker, conspiratorial tone, and Townsend Brown (not quite belatedly, and perhaps reluctantly?) as one of its patron saints, started popping up, claiming that the physics mainstream was wrong and there were 'wonder weapons' that a US and Soviet elite were developing in secret, perhaps for WWIII or perhaps to use against their populations. The high point of this new alt-physics belief system coinciding with a whole lot of UFO synchronicity around 1977-78. What was going on? Was it just the general rebellious American mood of the 70s? The 'Spirit of '76'? The paranoid crash after the psychedelic 60s high? A reaction to the space boosterism of the 60s and Nixon's confusing cancellation of Apollo 'just when it was getting good'? Was it just processing the psychic scar of Vietnam? All or none of the above?

And then this stuff grew under the radar during the Reagan 80s, and crashed into global pop culture in the Clinton 90s - with a precursor of more localised Patriot / Black Helicopter conspiracy fuel directed, rather oddly in retrospect given the hyper-partisan Republican/Democrat polarization to come, at the Republican George HW Bush around 1990.

Little of any of this makes sense to me. What happened to fundamental physics in the 50s-60s? Why do materials science and condensed-matter physics still seem to be going fine, but high-energy physics seems to be chasing ever-diminishing returns while gravity just seems to be mostly fluffy theory unrelated to experiment? Is it just that we really did run out of good questions to ask the universe, and the answers are forever out of our reach at higher energy scales than we can mobilise in a human lifetime?

Reading Kip Thorne's article, there's just such a disconnect from how the world's greatest physicists look back on the period with such pride ('one of the nicest features of the Golden Age was the way we all built on each other's work'... 'the final edifice was a marvellous mathematical structure')... and what, actually, in the end, was accomplished: a pile of esoteric philosophy and no hardware.

I mean I know science isn't always about hardware but if all you do is make models of stars a billion light years away that you can never verify... what's the point?

For a physics layperson it's like stumbling into a Scholastic theological convention around AD 1000. What, actually, is all this extremely complicated (and apparently utterly devoid of physical consequences) abstract discussion for? Who benefits, and how? What's the payoff for the funders? Just an extremely long-shot defense investment in case the Soviets or Chinese, against what must now be trillion-to-one odds, come up with something usable?

Or, an unspeakable thought: what if there was a flurry of interest in billion-year cosmology and black holes (which, remember, even Einstein didn't believe in) around the mid 1960s because something similar was being created in a lab? and the experimentalists desperately needed theoretical insight? And they pointed to the stars because that was 'safe' data, not subject to security restrictions, but they were actually looking at something much closer?

That idea is one I don't particularly want to entertain because it seems to go to dark places. It seems to require most of mainstream physics to have been involved in a lie, and I don't want to go there.

But more than that... cosmological papers themselves just don't seem to support that reading. It really does seem that most of the excitement was just about probing the mathematical structure of General Relativity. And it's an excitement that, for whatever reason, I just don't share.

Regards, Nate
Last edited by nate on Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
But on inspection of the dust
I came upon this thing called 'trust'
It helps
us to adjust
User avatar
nate
 
Posts: 884
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2015 4:03 am

Re: Incoming

Postby G-Man » Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:00 am

Not a lie, Nate, just a mistaken belief. Add a strong positive feedback system and the ever-increasing Cost Of Science.

Perhaps gravity is actually simpler than SM physics can imagine, rather than more complex. "More complex than the human mind can imagine" is both deeply unsatisfying and deeply unlikely, in my view.

I believe there is a way which pretty much allows everyone to be right - they are simply missing that small but important point which will glue everything together in an orgy of forehead slapping and rid physics of much of its Internal Woo-Woo, to be replaced by a rather more simple and elegant set of concepts.

Stephen Hawking isn't so sure about black holes any more. It would seem that there is no doubt that matter changes the rules when it reaches a certain threshold of energy density; but playing the Big Bang tape backwards may offer better clues than Schwarzschild's cigarette packet. But whatever those parping relativists may say, the universe simply will not work if gravity (a fundamental phenomenon) is relegated to the same position in the hierarchy as electromagnetism (an emergent phenomenon). They seem like a bunch of Prius owners who won't admit to the existence of Ferraris and don't want anyone else to own one.

Do you believe the assertion that there is a fundamental relationship between mass, inertia and gravitation; a fundamental identity, if you like?
ύλη είναι το μοτέρ

"Il faut savoir tout envisager mais surtout ne rien croire" Aimé Michel

"Se non capite qualcosa, sbarazzarsi di esso"
User avatar
G-Man
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:27 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin failt du

PreviousNext

Return to Resolute

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest