Today, in the NYTimes, Joe Nocera reflects on the history, psychology, and inevitability of bubbles.  That is, as long as there is some freedom to speculate.  He begins with a melancholy quotation from the great Newton, the original "master of the universe."

“I can calculate the motions of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.” — Isaac Newton, 1721, after the South Sea bubble burst.

Poor Issy lost big time, but he was comfortably off with several government sinecures, nevertheless.  This contemporary economic magus quoted by JN wasn't so lucky:

On Friday, Mr. Shiller [an economist] told me of a conversation he had with an economist friend of his. The man had spent his entire career advocating the efficient market hypothesis, which posits that all known information about a stock is already priced into it. But with the market in collapse, the economist sold all his stocks. “I feel like a Christian Scientist who has come down with appendicitis,” he told Mr. Shiller.

I wonder where Nocera had his money!  Did he see it coming?

Well, if you're not having enough fun yet, delve into the history of the South Sea and Mississippi Bubbles, and the Ur-Panic of them all, the Tulipomania by skimming through this Victorian classic:

That's Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds, which you can buy for pennies in used book stores on the Net.  Or you can buy this antique edition...might be a good investment!  That's John Law on the cover.  He's the subject of a popular biography, Millionaire, that tells of his ill fated inteventions with the French economy a generation or so before the Revolution.  Seems he was fond of risky securities.  The plot of the novel, Manon Lescaut - adopted for opera, plays, television? - is connected with the John Law schemes:  it is the device by which the star crossed (numbskull) lovers are united in the New World, temporarily free from the oppression of class society and debt.

Gleeson seems to have a preoccupation with financial alchemy:  She has another book, The Arcanum, that describes an early case of industrial espionage regarding the secret of turning dirt into  retail gold, procelaine, that is.

Are we having fun yet?

]]> http://naturallycomposed.wordpress.com/?p=257 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:48:31 +0000 Matthew Taylor http://naturallycomposed.pt-br.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/subjective-wavelength-observation/

Isaac Newton said, "The light rays are not coloured."

Newton was referring to the perception of color. The human eye does not see color, but the different wavelengths of light which create the sense of color. In other words, our brain calculates what colors we should percieve as well as compute which wavelengths are visible at any given moment. Essentially the light energy striking the retina is what creates our colorful world. Intriguing in-deed.

What did all that just mean? Well, it is a prelude to a much more vast and complicated review of the brain and the correlation with the eye. I have recently come upon some information that has inspired a more in-depth look at the way we see. I was originally exposed to this idea of wavelenghts creating the perception of color when my professor from last semester brought to attention this idea. I will do more research and write more at a later date. Right now, I must study.

MT

Isaac Newton. Image taken from Wikipedia

Article taken from worldnetdaily.com

In "Temple at the Center of Time: Newton's Bible Codex Deciphered and the Year 2012," by David Flynn, a book that has skyrocketed up the best-seller charts following its release this month, the author makes a correction to Isaac Newton's research, pointing to the year 2013 as "the time of the end."

In 2003, the Daily Telegraph in London published a front-page story declaring that, according to Isaac Newton, the world would end in 2060. This was the first time that this calculation of Newton became widely known. However, various biographers and researcher of Newton's theology had encountered it since 1991 when most of his manuscripts were released on microfilm at the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem.

According to Flynn, in the 1660s when Newton believed that the end of days was imminent, there seemed no reason to work out the approximate year in which it would occur. With the Great Plague, the fire of London and the apocalyptic fervor of the times, it seemed obvious to Newton that the end time had already arrived. But over the ensuing decades of his life, Newton became increasingly aware that his convictions had been premature. Near the year 1705, when Newton was in his sixties, his concern for preventing the repetition of the same error compelled him to invest his considerable knowledge to setting the matter of the time of the end to rest. The paper in which Newton recorded this calculation was the subject of the article in the London Daily Telegraph in 2003. Very few readers understood Newton's reasoning for the date, not being scholars of end time prophecy themselves. Newton wrote concerning it:

This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, & by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail. Christ comes as a thief in the night, & it is not for us to know the times & seasons which God hath put into his own breastNewton arrived at the year 2060 in a straightforward manner. He believed that the last world empire at the coming of the Antichrist would be a revived Roman Empire, a concept wholly embraced by eschatologists in modern times as well. He also believed that this had actually occurred in A.D. 800 through the coronation of Charlemagne by Pope Leo III as ruler of the revived Roman Empire in the West.

As described by the prophet Daniel, and John in Revelation, the revived Roman Empire will rule for one "week," a period of seven times 360 days, or 2,520 days total. In the midst of this week, at 1,260 days, the Antichrist will desecrate the future temple in Jerusalem. Following the day/year guideline, Newton assigned 1,260 years of the Revived Roman empire before Antichrist's desecration of the temple. This he did realizing that the rebuilding of the temple and the judgments of Revelation did not follow the rebirth of the Roman Empire in A.D. 800. None of the prophecies of the End of Days followed the coronation of Charlemagne as Emperor of the revived Roman Empire after 1,260, nor for that matter, any of the years up until Newton's day. Therefore, he established each day with a year from A.D. 800, arriving at the year A.D. 2060.

In a manuscript number 7.3g, f. 13v. of the Yahuda collection, Newton was even more specific about the 2060 date.

So then the time times & half a time are 42 months or 1260 days or three years & an half, reckoning twelve months to a year & 30 days to a month as was done in the Calendar of the primitive year. And the days of short lived Beasts being put for the years of lived [sic for "long lived"] kingdoms, the period of 1260 days, if dated from the complete conquest of the three kings A.C. 800, will end A.C. 2060.But Newton's prediction of Charlemagne's revived Roman Empire starting in A.D. 800 and existing until the return of Christ was contradicted in 1806 when Napoleon forced the Empire's dissolution.

"But," says Flynn, "there remains a valid aspect of Newton's calculation. There is reason to believe he was correct in his assumption that there would be 1,260 years until the return of Christ at the rebirth of the Roman Empire, but that the year he chose was incorrect. There is actually a better date based on the founding of Rome and the methodology of Daniel's prophecy."

Flynn explains: "The Romans had fixed the birth of the city of Rome and the Empire in 753 B.C. It was believed that the patriarch of the city, Romulus, had marked out the boundaries for the wall of Rome in this year. Known as Ab Urbe Condita (literally, from the founding of the city) the Roman calendar began with 753 B.C. according to the dating of Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 B.C.) who lived at the time of the Empire itself.

Because of how the prophet Daniel divided the prophetic week in half, Flynn believes the original founding date for the empire of the prophecy, Rome, would follow this pattern and be bisected. Therefore, correcting Newton's date, the year 753 B.C. designates the founding of the physical Rome while A.D. 753 establishes the rebirth of spiritual Rome. Counting 1,260 years forward from A.D. 753, one arrives at the year 2013.

Additional significance can be attached to this finding when considering that 2013 follows the end of the great cycle of the Maya calendar and the planetary cycle of the Aztec calendar, which concludes Dec. 21, 2012. This date has raised apocalyptic fears in corners around the world. According to "The Bible Code," the world will end on this date due to a collision with a meteor, asteroid, or comet. Another theory – the "Novelty Theory" – claims time itself is a "fractal wave," which will end abruptly in 2012. Even the popular television program X-Files speculated that colonization of the earth by "aliens" would occur in December 2012.

The Maya themselves describe past visits of Quetzalcoatl, the Feathered Serpent, descending through a "hole in the sky" on a rope ladder. They believe at the end of 2012 the serpent rope will emerge again from the center of the Milky Way, and Quetzalcoatl will return, heralding a new era at the start of 2013. Another version of the story has Quetzalcoatl sailing down on a winged ship, causing some to speculate that a UFO armada or "mother ship" could descend and take up position over earth on that date.

Besides this type of speculation, an unusual number of important events will occur beginning in 2012. NASA is predicting the next Solar Maximum will arrive in 2012 and will be the strongest in 50 years. At the same time, the sun will align with the center of the Milky Way for the first time in 26,000 years, on the exact date of the end of the Mayan calendar, Dec. 21, 2012. This will also be the year when the United States and the United Nations elect a new president and a new secretary general, considered by some to be the two most powerful "thrones" on earth, and the seat from which prophecy experts say the Antichrist will rule or receive power.

On a YouTube video here, well-known preacher Jack Van Impe says that the year 2012 and the end of the Mayan Calendar could mark the return of Jesus Christ.

Based on his research into the Jewish Feasts, Pastor Mark Biltz of El Shaddai Ministries (as laid out in a series of two DVD teachings produced by WND Videos called "The Feasts of the Lord") believes this time frame between 2012-2015 could be prophetic and may signal the return of Christ. He says for people who believe in a "pre-tribulation rapture," this would make the year 2008 very important. For those who believe in a mid-tribulation rapture, 2012 may mark their departure. And on his website, he adds "if you're prewrath, then 2014 might be interesting [and] if you're a posttribber, 2015 is the date to watch for."

For the entire article, click HERE

Uncle Audley started to wax lyrical about the age of enlightenment and his scientific revolution. Knowing Uncle Audley, I guess that his journey to the 18th Century would have a resonance with some aspects of modern day life.  Sure enough it did.  “It was a momentous Century.  We had an age where there was a combination of deep intellectual thought and ground breaking scientific inventions and discoveries.  The barriers to human advancement were swept away by these twin movements.  I would say that no previous era has seen such an advance in the betterment of the ordinary individual human being on this island.  Ok, there was still oppressive poverty, brutality and injustice but the foundations were put down for the order of the Victorian Age.

What was also noteworthy was the Government just went about its business and let the philosophers and inventors go about theirs.  They did not seek to take credit for the advancements. 

One of the great figures of this age was Adam Smith, the great Scot, who wrote the Wealth of Nations.  I can now see that he is featured on the back of our twenty pound notes.  Adam Smith came from Kirkcaldy.  Another scion of that exalted parish is Gordon Brown. 

Compare Gordon’s sense of achievement with that of one of the great figures, Sir Isaac Newton.  When Sir Isaac was praised for his achievements, he replied “if I have achieved anything it is because I have been able to stand on the shoulders of giants”.  Our Gordon has shown no such restraint or modesty.  The successful performance of the British economy over the last decade was entirely down to him.  No credit given to the world conditions, the internet revolution driving down unit costs, or the demand from the BRIC economies.  Much less to his Conservative predecessor, Ken Clark, under  whose stewardship, the economy had grown consistently over the previous four years or so."

Încep cu sfârşitul (nu mă pot abţine) : Alchimia lui Serge Hutin este o cărticică simpatică, o lectura uşoară şi reconfortantă, într-un cuvânt nu provoacă dureri de cap, frustrări şi angoase de tot felul, aşa cum o fac lucrările iniţiaţilor. De exemplu, Titus Burckhardt, despre care am vorbit într-un post anterior, deşi îşi doreşte să se păstreze la nivel de generalităţi şi introduceri ,asezonate doar cu ceva profunzimi, zdruncină un pic tărâţele de la mansardă.

A fost prima carte despre alchimie cu care m-am întalnit, undeva între liceu şi facultate, la biblioteca veche (poate o sa va povestesc odată despre farmecul pe care îl avea biblioteca în fosta clădire).  Între timp, o persoană atentă (în sensul că miroase cartile de la 10 kilometrii) mi-a cumpărat cartea tocmai de la Timişoara, aşa că, pentru acest post, am recitit-o.

Serge Hutin are ca ţel (declarat) un studiu scurt, cuprinzător şi obiectiv asupra principalelor aspecte ale alchimiei : definiţie, origine, istoric, concepte fundamentale, simboluri, lucrările practice şi mistică.
Încă din definiţia dată acestei arte oculte recunoaşte cele două mari orientări în alchimie – practică şi mistică (ultima mergând până la negarea oricărei experienţe practice în favoarea transmutării exclusive a plumbului sufletului în aur ). Ars magna (adevărata cale a iniţiatului) presupune evoluţia în ambele direcţii.
Mi-au plăcut două fragmente ( unul fiind un citat dintr-un chimist pasionat de alchimie).  « Istoria alchimiei este teribil de obscură. Este o ştiinţă fără o rădăcină aparentă, care se manifestă brusc în momentul căderii imperiului roman şi care se dezvoltă de-a lungul evului mediu, în mijlocul misterelor şi al simbolurilor, fără a ieşi din stadiul de doctrină ocultă şi persecutată ; savanţii şi filosofii se amestecă şi se contopesc cu halucinanţii, cu magicienii, cu şarlatanii şi uneori chiar cu nelegiuiţii, cu escrocii, cu otrăvitorii şi cu falsificatorii de bani » (Berthelot).  Celălalt este o concluzie a autorului cu privire la originile alchimiei occidentale (căci există şi o alchimie asiatică, pe care, însă, noi europenii, o cunoaştem mai puţin) : « Alchimia gracă s-a manifestat într-o perioadă de intensă fermentaţie spirituală ; ea exprimă colaborarea de influenţe şi tendinţe destul de diverse, deşi de inspiraţie analogă ; îşi conferă alura unei vaste sinteze care uneşte arta practică a egiptenilor şi filosofia greacă, doctrinele orientale şi misticismul alexandrin, cu un preţios amestec de elemente orientale, greceşti, evreieşti şi creştine » (tot acest talmeş-balmeş desfăşurându-se în Alexandria ).
Despre Ars Magna se spune că ar duce la trezirea « forţelor dumnezeieşti în om ».

În privinţa formelor aberante ale alchimiei, S. Hutin arată că deşi n-au avut niciodată importanţă considerabilă, au făcut totuşi să se vorbească de ele mijlocul marelui public : ermetismul pervertit s-a asociat cu vrăjitoria denaturată ; exemplul cel mai semnificativ al « alchimistului negru » este faimosul mareşal Gilles de Rays, care (dacă ar fi să ne luăm după mărturiile de la procesul său) ar fi sacrificat mai multe sute de copii practicilor sale magice. « Alchimiştii negrii » au dezvoltat o serie de practici : « messa neagră », desfrâul erotic menit să capteze fluidul magic care se degajă din împerecheri, omorul ritual ş.a. Toţi aceştia nu şi-au dorit de la alchimie decât aur şi putere ; cu creeri încinşi de la atâtea texte încâlcite şi frustraţi, datorită şirului neîntrerupt al insucceselor, au apelat la satanism în speranţa unui rezultat.

Ceea ce mă intrigă cu adevărat este că mari fizicieni (precum Isaac Newton) sau chimişti au fost preocupaţi serios de alchimie, iar o bună parte a descoperirilor lor se datorează tocmai acestei arte oculte şi aproape uitate. Nu ma refer aici la descoperirea întâmplătoare a unor substanţe, ci la cercetări fundamentale. Dacă Isaac Newton, unul din părinţii fizicii a fost alchimist, iar Einstein (este adevărat spre sfârşitul vieţii) a dezvoltat teorii holistice ce amintesc de vechi vise (poate o sa scriu un post despre cartea lui A.E. – « Cum văd eu lumea »), atunci ceva, pe undeva trebuie să fie adevărat.

It is as well a story that touches on the birth of the modern financial system -- it covers the period when things like the Bank of  England, fractional reserve banking, a variety of paper instruments, debt-for equity swaps (a little later, actually) and other such esoterica were all being tried out.

Of great importance was the development of a bunch of different approaches to financing government expenditure.  All kinds of things got a work out. The book deals with some of them, including a marvelous chimera of an instrument that was at once a lottery ticket, paper money, and a bond.  Weird -- but creditors of the Royal Navy, among others, were compelled to accept the notes at par.

Unsurprisingly, some writers on what was yet to be called the discipline of political economy had grave doubts about the transformation of money into paper, and government resources from receipts into debt.  They raised questions.  And on at least one occasion, Newton answered them.

In 1700, Newton, then Master of the Mint, got into a dispute with John Pollexfen, a member of parliament and a founding member of the Board of Trade (with Newton's friend and admirer, the philosopher and theorist of money, John Locke).

Pollexfen was a hard money guy -- paper might have some use in the financial system, but everyone knew real money took the form of silver and gold coins.

He argued that use of paper instruments depended on the money being held to support it.  Not for him was this new fangled notion of fractional reserve banking:  an institution issuing a note had to have the denominated amount in coin to back up the piece of paper that claimed to be money.  That is: paper was a convenient method of signifying the existence of an amount of real money; it was not money in and of itself.

Newton disagreed.  His handwritten draft of a reply to Pollexfen survives in his Mint papers, and in that draft he wrote that creation of paper instruments -- including those issued by the government as debt -- was essential to ensure that the nation's economy did not collapse for want of an adequate money supply.  He wrote "If interest be not yet low enough for the advantage of trade and designs of setting the poor on work...the only proper way to lower it si more paper and credit till trading and business we can get more money."

Interesting ideas, no?  Increase the money supply to lower the price of money, the interest rate, and thus enhance trade and employment.  What a notion!

The other Newton comment that I know of on the question of whether government debt instruments were a good idea is even more striking.  He wrote in a different context on the question of whether the creation of government debt instruments were inherently damaging to government finance and the economy that, in fact, credit was supremely useful because,

"Tis mere opinion that sets a value upon money [coined precious metal]...and the same opinion sets a value upon paper security...All the difference is ...that the value of the former is more universal than the latter."

Mere opinion!  This was a radical idea indeed at the turn of the eighteenth century

Newton did allow that credit was like doctor's physic.  To a certain dose it was helpful; to excess it could be deadly... a sentiment which also has strangely contemporary echo.

None of this to say that Newton was anything like a pioneer of economic thought; he was not.  Most of his views represented variations on contemporary elite opinion -- which was struggling to come to grips with a transformation in finance that accompanied the global expansion of English and European trade and economic life.

But even here there are parallels.  Much of our problem today derives from the toxic consequences of exotic variations on older financial tricks, some of which do in fact have roots that stretch back, through several removes, to this beginning.  Now, as then, the failure of many to grasp the implications, the risks, associated with such innovation presented opportunities both legal and definitely criminal.  Even the smartest were not immune to the lure of occult, effortlessly acquirable wealth...

...and not even Isaac Newton himself avoided the infection, as will be discussed in another post, soon.

(See G. Findlay Shirras and J.H. Craig's article "Sir Isaac Newton and the Currency" in The Economic Journal, Vol. 55, No. 218/219 Jun - Sep. 1945 for a fuller account of Newton's involvement in the currency/credit issues of his day).

(Also:  I can't tell you what a pleasure it was to take a brief break and write about something that doesn't have to do with either of the those-who-must-not-be-named who have been bedevilling my concentration these last too-many days.)

Image:  Augustus Pugin and Thomas Rowlandson, "The Great Hall of the Bank of England," in Ackermann's Microcosm of London (1808-11).  (Anachronistic, I know -- but what a nice image.)  Source:  Wikimedia Commons.

by Cole Coonce

I was roaming the Manufacturers Midway at the '92 NHRA World Finals, separated from my friends, lost and slightly overwhelmed by the crowd and hullabaloo in this sideshow/Disneyland atmosphere. Off in the distance, out by where the econo-dragster guys pit, a huge white banner embossed with the phrase "Memory Lane" caught my attention. The pennant swayed in the wind, beckoning like a beacon. I weaseled my way through the throng of the midway, strains of "Nearer My God to Thee" echoing in mind as I bore my way through the multitude.

It was here that I found a small cadre of slingshot AA/Fuel Dragsters, a couple of injected small- block junior fuelers, a dry lake streamliner, and other quaint relics from the days of yore. Inside this outdoor pavilion a smattering of hard-core nitro hounds had come to pay their respects at this impromptu memorial to the men and machines that mattered, this shrine to the legends and luminaries of drag racing. I was by myself, eavesdropping on the chatter and the bench-racing. The conversation was good. In the center of this display was a restoration-in-progress that had the assembled the cruster gearheads and nitro hounds all agog.

The source of their excitement: the "Winged Express" '23 T AA/Fuel Altered, replete with what looked like one of the countless trophies it had won, resting in the drivers seat. Yes, the legendary, record-breaking machine that had been masterminded and crafted by Alvin "Mousie" Marcellus and driven by his soul mate "Wild Willie" Borsch would soon drag race again. I knew that Borsch had passed on to the great taco stand in the sky, succumbed to cancer in October of 1991. This restoration project was a tribute to the skill and genius of a fallen hero. (It was too ironic: the man who cheated death every time he climbed into his asbestos fire suit, the man who drove his race car in a style entirely too ornery for pregnant women or the faint of heart to observe, the man who held the grim reaper hisself in a chokehold, claimed by something as banal as cancer. It seemed a cruel, sick joke.)

The men and women gathered in a semi-circle around the half-finished "Winged Express," alternately laughing and listening in reverent silence to the yarns spun by Mousie. Marcellus was "in the house," as they say, working the room with the grace and panache of Swifty Lazar at Spago on Oscar night. He regaled his minions with the story of when Willie flipped and rolled the altered at Martin, Michigan in '70, one of the few times the machine got away from him. Marcellus and the crew arrived at the scene to find Borsch had become rabid with fear and anxiety. Willie was wailing and bellowing, "I'm blind, I'm blind," only to be answered by roars of laughter from his crew. After the all the howling had subsided, Mousey patiently explained to Willie that he could not see because his head was wrapped and intertwined in the parachute.

Marcellus then launched into another anecdote about Borsch, and in the meanwhile I started chatting up nostalgia Top Fuel scenester Tom Hunnicutt. Hunnicutt asked me if I had said "Hello to Willie?" I told Tom I went over and tipped my hat to the newly restored "Winged Express" but no, Willie Borsch was dead, what do you mean did I go over and say hello to him? Hunnicutt then asked me to examine more closely the "trophy" sitting in the driver’s seat of the "Winged Express." I walked back over and looked more discriminately at the cockpit of the roadster. That was no trophy--it was an urn...containing the ashes of William Bowen Borsch. He had come home.

...Yes, even in death, the exploits of "Wild Willie" continue to be stranger than fiction. But it was his displays of bravado and fearlessness on Planet Earth for which he will be most remembered. Consider the time he banged the car off the guardrail, crossed the centerline, bounced off the other guardrail, crossed the centerline again (to get back into his own lane), and caught and passed the guy he was racing. The fact that he denied to Mousie that he was driving the altered with one hand--Marcellus had to show Borsch photographs of him in action to prove it. Or the night at Lions Drag Strip when Willie stabbed the throttle and the entire machine leaped into the air, it landed, Willie whapped it again, she became airborne once more, it came down facing the guardrail, Willie punched the throttle anyway, straightened 'er out and consummated the run. The crowd went apeshit.

Marcellus tells of Borsch's affliction with narcolepsy. Because of which, people mistook his drowsiness for a laconic obstinacy. On more than one occasion, moments before a typical over-under-sideways-down pass "Wild Willy" would nod out while strapped into the altered in the staging lanes. Marcellus would nudge the racecar with the push truck, rousing Willy from his slumber. And the time the "Winged Express" qualified for Top Fuel Eliminator at the '69 Winternationals, bumping "Big Daddy" Don Garlits out of the show. Before eliminations the remaining 31 dragster shoes called an impromptu drivers meeting, threatening to boycott the event if they to race next to Willie. Garlits was reinstated.

Yes, 32 dragster drivers could not be wrong. They knew that practicality of running a AA/Fuel Altered is really an exercise in the "square-peg-in-a-round-hole" theorem, with a co-efficient of the "bigger hammer" principle. In other words, when you shoehorn a nitro-guzzling supercharged Chrysler motor betwixt a few pieces of exhaust tubing masquerading as a chassis, especially one with a real short wheelbase, you are asking for trouble. There are some basic laws of torque and Newtonian physic that must at least be acknowledged--regardless of the mounting of a giant airfoil in hopes of pile-driving enough downforce to make this monstrosity go straight. Due to the short wheelbase, there is a whole lot of horsepower with no place to go--except approximately 45 degrees stage right. Then you add a stiff-necked Borsch to the equation, which is definitely tantamount to throwing gasoline into the fire. In fact, the popular platitude murmured in the cheap seats (in those days they were all cheap seats) to describe a one of his stereotypical, non-linear excursions down the 1320 was this: "Willie has to drive half a mile in order to go a quarter."

It was his uncompromising bullheadedness, however, that contributed to the conquering of the "Lions" share of Marcellus and Borsch’s competition, as well as their procurement of many AA/FA performance plateaus; the first in the 8's, the first in the 7's, and the first to eclipse 200 mph in one of these highly unpredictable suicide machines.

Ironically, this same attitude that garnered these men all of the accolades (Willie was voted Car Craft Magazine's Competition Eliminator Driver of the Year in 1973; he did not even compete in that class that year) also severed a friendship and an inspired collaboration, a creative partnership worthy of Weill and Brecht, or Lennon and McCartney. After Marcellus had procured some dough from Revell Models, the duo seemed to be on their way to Easy Money, U.S.A. Before the ink was dry on the contract Borsht insisted on propelling their new Dodge funny car with a big-block Chevrolet, apropos of nothing. They had always run Chrysler hemis, Mousie insisted, why sabotage a winning combination? Unfortunately, these creative differences began to swell. They detonated when Borsch refused to put on his shirt at a photo shoot for the Revell people. Marcellus in effect handed Willie the keys to the tow-vehicle, telling Willie he had become too stubborn to work with. The Revell deal lasted a few months for Borsch, but without Mousie the combination never gelled. Their friendship was shattered, a friendship that began at a South Central Los Angeles elementary school in the 1930s, not to be reconciled until the waning years of Willie's life.

Yes, let us applaud and bow to the spirit and zeal of Marcellus and Borsch. It was the yen and yang exemplified. But we must remember this: Neither man was the same without each other. And because of Borsch stubborn independence, many race fans never got a chance to appreciate his genius, a brilliance he showcased every time they ran their racecar. When it comes to the art of drag racing I think corporate America can go fuck themselves too, Mr. Borsch. But if you had only put that shirt on, Willie... -FINI-

I guess you deserve to know the general thrust of my feelings and motivations for writing this so let me share. I am highly trained in technical and scientific disciplines and, though it may seem a bit geeky, I am absolutely passionate about physics. I work in a technical field where my life literally hangs on the infallibility of the laws of physics and I trust them completely.

Having said all that let me also state for the record that I believe in God. I understand and respect those of you who do not and I will try to be fair and open to your replies. My intent is not to preach religion or to berate, criticize or otherwise mock any of you with opposing views who are kind enough to read and hopefully comment on the thoughts expressed here. I truly hope we can enter into a stimulating and refreshing dialogue.

I believe that there is a middle ground that allows for the belief in a Deity as well as a recognition that the efforts of people throughout the centuries to understand this world and the manner of its creation are valid. I think the present day conflict is the result of some pretty egregious errors on the part of theologians and the arrogance and hubris of some academicians.

My reasoning goes something like this; There is an erroneous assumption that the edicts and declarations of one particular religious leader or church, if that church is large enough, are the declarations of religion in general. This is not true. In fact there are many differing thoughts among many different religious people and no one doctrine or dogma speaks for them all. More importantly, truth is truth and it exists indepentdantly of the declarations of well meaning but perhaps mis-informed theologians. Similarly, the laws of the universe, i.e. the sciences, are also inviolate though scientists may not understand them completely and may act on partial understandings or upon completely erroneous asssumptions. History is rife with examples and perhaps they are best left for discussions which will hopefully follow.

I do not maintain the arrogance to suppose that I have all the answers but as one who loves and respects the sciences but who also devotes as much time to pondering things of a spiritual nature, I believe I am in a unique position to comment. Over the coming weeks and months I will endeavor to address areas of apparent conflict between scicence and religion and see if there is any common ground. I think you will be entertained. I hope you will be entertained. My promise to you is that I will not preach nor attempt to convert. I will strive to demonstrate the idea that these two great and important fields are not mutually exclusive and have and can peacefully co-exist and actually enhance one another. After all, truth is the ultimate holy grail. However, unlike the golden chalis of the Monty Python quest, this holy grail - Truth - is out there.

"To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." -- Isaac Newton

A predominant issue arising from my work is the discovery of the difference between a node and a link.  A node type represents a state type while a link type represents a transaction between state types.  However I am finding there are a limited number of node types (self-ordered states) and link types (self-ordered state actions).

In the diagram below, each polyhedron is a first frequency geodesate and has a unique polytrope/polytype combination.  A polytrope is the number of edges per polyhedron vertex.  A polytype is the number of polyhedron vertexes.  This is not the final version.  I am still working to purify my geodesate concept.

What I am revealing here is that each of the seven Node Types on the Left has only one Link Type on the right.  In the same way that an association is composed of a source node type and target node type, an association is composed of a source link type and target link type.

Here is an example of a homogenous Entity to Entity association:

Here is an example of a hetergeneous Entity to Positity association:

Having considered this it is now possible to conclude that there are a unique set of nodes each with a unique link which can be used to build homogeneous or heterogeneous associations.  In otherwords, each node type can perform only one action type.  It is the reaction type of the target node type that makes the action reaction combination unique in the system.

Let's look at some examples of node type and link type associations:

1. To identify a positity, positifies an identity.
2. To objectify a projectity, projectifies an objectity.
3. To chronify a chronity, chronifies a chronity.
4. To projectify a quantity, quantifies the projectity.
5. To qualify an identity, identifies a quality.

Fourty-nine possible type combinations exist.  I think there are even more types which I will explore with Archimedean Solids and higher frequency Geodesates in later posts.

]]> http://mswint.wordpress.com/?p=22 Thu, 18 Sep 2008 02:05:23 +0000 mswint http://religionisscience.pt-br.wordpress.com/2008/09/18/science-and-religion/ I am intrigued by the element of human nature that makes us prone to the idea that most issues are " either - or" propositions. We seem all too willing to accept the notion that there are only two sides to everything. Often, two sides are just the extremes of any position and a third "middle ground" may exist. I guess you could say there could be three (or more) sides to everything.

I take for example the argument, nay, the battle, between Science and Religion. The basic assumption is that one either accepts science and the scientific method, ORreligion, and the almost mythological accounts it posits, ut not both, for the existence and purpose of everything. In this I think we err.

First, those most arrogantly supportive of the cleverness of men over anything thing else greater than ourselves, make very erroneous assumptions about the claims of 'religion' on the subjects of creation and existence. I put the word religion in brackets because to categorize religion as one single entity is wrong. There are myriad viewpoints that support a religious world view, just as there are myriad viewpoints about different aspects of science.

"But wait!" you say. Science is pure, refined and perfectly unified in its theory. Not so my good friends, not so. I point you to the tale of Sir Issac Newton, argueably one of the most brilliant men in history. When he presented his ideas about motion and introduced the concepts of 'Newtonian Physics' to the Royal Academy he was nearly run out of England. He incurred such wrath that the august scientist Robert Hook - himself a brilliant researcher ' swore in his indignation that he would destroy Isaac Newton. All this because Isaac dared to contradict the 2000 year old assumptions of Aristotle. Newton was so distressed by his rebuff that he retreated to his country home and hid out for several years. Today we have researchers at great odds with one another over the truth or error of String Theory. And in case you have missed it in the mainstream media, the whole "Global warming is human caused" thing is very far from being universally accepted by scientists. If you think I am stretching the truth hear just Google "Solar Flux" and learn how Mars has been warming concurrently with Earth. (I wonder how we did that?)

The point is, "Religion" and Religious theory" cannot be categorized into one single viewpoint. The fact that certain vocal fundamentalists decide to interpret one element of creation in the most literal sense i.e. that God create the world in 6 days , does not mean that every good Christian, Muslim or Jew must believe the same thing or lose the faith.

I point to the creation story as found in Genesis as an example. Scientists (rightly, I think) laugh at the notion that the Earth was created in just 6 Solar periods or just 144 hours. But I ask, is this really what the Bible says? Oh yes, the word 'day' is used but does that mean 24 hours. The term 'day' is used throughout the Bible in various ways. In fact, in the story of Adam and Eve the Lord says 'In the day that ye eat thereof you shall surely die!" Yet we read that Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit and, rather than die that very day, as the literalist would insist, they were expelled from the garden and thrust into the dark and dreary world. In this case the word day was used to mean 'event that' or 'once this is done'. Actually, it is consistent that once they ate of the forbidden fruit, their lives changed and they were expelled from the Garden. According to the account, they changed from immortal to mortal and they did eventually die. So it could correctly be said that on the day they ate of the fruit circumstances were changed and it became sure that they would eventually die.

When we say that the earth was made in 6 days we can all think back to the countless times when our parents and grandparents  related to us accounts of their youth and said "in my day" or as Archie and Edith Bunker said in the opening song of the T.V. series 'All in the Family' "Those were the days." Using the word Day to refer to a creative period in the Bible is the same as the use of the term Age to refer to an anthropological period such as the Bronze Age, the Stone Age, the Neolithic Age. We must remember that Moses, the writer of Genesis was not a scientist, He was a goat herder. He claims to have seem a vision of the creation of the world and he was then left with the task of describing what he saw in words he had at his command.

I believe Science and Religion can peacefully co-exist. They may disagree on the fine points but the idea that you must choose between science or religion to live your life is just silly. Let me show you how easy this can really be. PLATE TECHTONICS is the accepted theory of land mass formation and the creation of Seas and Continents. It states (simply) that chunks of the Earth's Crust float on the mantle and move about. As one chunk crashes into another one is driven downward and the other is lifted up and over, this creates high places and low places. Any GEOLOGY 101 class will teach you that at the beginning the surface of the Earth was smooth and featureless. They go on by saying that as the plates began to move, the water, which covered the Earth completely and evenly, began to gather to the deep spots leaving dry earth to appear, slowly at first, and then as islands and continents.

Now let's look at Genesis and the words of a simple goat herder trying to describe what he saw in a vision.

Genesis 1:2 And the Earth was  without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep (Water?) And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

So far there is no disagreement with Techtonic theory.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Again, no disagreement! If we allow that Moses did not know the term Plate Techtonics (A Greek term) and simply used words at his disposal to describe a process that he did not understand we can then say that the BIble and Geological Science have common ground. It should be pointed out here that Techtonic theory did not come abobut until 1965, thus it can be rightly argued that the Bible had it right well before Science figured it out. What the scientists did was give process and explanation to an account that was just a simple observation.

My point is, where there are two diametrically opposed positions at work there can be, and usually is, a third position that might include both.

It is my firm belief that I and many other scientifically minded people can  hold to a religious belief while using science to explain the things  that are observed and recorded in books of scripture.

I take for example the argument, nay, the battle, between Science and Religion. The basic assumption is that one either accepts science and the scientific method, ORreligion, and the almost mythological accounts it posits, ut not both, for the existence and purpose of everything. In this I think we err.

First, those most arrogantly supportive of the cleverness of men over anything thing else greater than ourselves, make very erroneous assumptions about the claims of 'religion' on the subjects of creation and existence. I put the word religion in brackets because to categorize religion as one single entity is wrong. There are myriad viewpoints that support a religious world view, just as there are myriad viewpoints about different aspects of science.

"But wait!" you say. Science is pure, refined and perfectly unified in its theory. Not so my good friends, not so. I point you to the tale of Sir Issac Newton, argueably one of the most brilliant men in history. When he presented his ideas about motion and introduced the concepts of 'Newtonian Physics' to the Royal Academy he was nearly run out of England. He incurred such wrath that the august scientist Robert Hook - himself a brilliant researcher ' swore in his indignation that he would destroy Isaac Newton. All this because Isaac dared to contradict the 2000 year old assumptions of Aristotle. Newton was so distressed by his rebuff that he retreated to his country home and hid out for several years. Today we have researchers at great odds with one another over the truth or error of String Theory. And in case you have missed it in the mainstream media, the whole "Global warming is human caused" thing is very far from being universally accepted by scientists. If you think I am stretching the truth hear just Google "Solar Flux" and learn how Mars has been warming concurrently with Earth. (I wonder how we did that?)

The point is, "Religion" and Religious theory" cannot be categorized into one single viewpoint. The fact that certain vocal fundamentalists decide to interpret one element of creation in the most literal sense i.e. that God create the world in 6 days , does not mean that every good Christian, Muslim or Jew must believe the same thing or lose the faith.

I point to the creation story as found in Genesis as an example. Scientists (rightly, I think) laugh at the notion that the Earth was created in just 6 Solar periods or just 144 hours. But I ask, is this really what the Bible says? Oh yes, the word 'day' is used but does that mean 24 hours. The term 'day' is used throughout the Bible in various ways. In fact, in the story of Adam and Eve the Lord says 'In the day that ye eat thereof you shall surely die!" Yet we read that Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit and, rather than die that very day, as the literalist would insist, they were expelled from the garden and thrust into the dark and dreary world. In this case the word day was used to mean 'event that' or 'once this is done'. Actually, it is consistent that once they ate of the forbidden fruit, their lives changed and they were expelled from the Garden. According to the account, they changed from immortal to mortal and they did eventually die. So it could correctly be said that on the day they ate of the fruit circumstances were changed and it became sure that they would eventually die.

When we say that the earth was made in 6 days we can all think back to the countless times when our parents and grandparents  related to us accounts of their youth and said "in my day" or as Archie and Edith Bunker said in the opening song of the T.V. series 'All in the Family' "Those were the days." Using the word Day to refer to a creative period in the Bible is the same as the use of the term Age to refer to an anthropological period such as the Bronze Age, the Stone Age, the Neolithic Age. We must remember that Moses, the writer of Genesis was not a scientist, He was a goat herder. He claims to have seem a vision of the creation of the world and he was then left with the task of describing what he saw in words he had at his command.

I believe Science and Religion can peacefully co-exist. They may disagree on the fine points but the idea that you must choose between science or religion to live your life is just silly. Let me show you how easy this can really be. PLATE TECHTONICS is the accepted theory of land mass formation and the creation of Seas and Continents. It states (simply) that chunks of the Earth's Crust float on the mantle and move about. As one chunk crashes into another one is driven downward and the other is lifted up and over, this creates high places and low places. Any GEOLOGY 101 class will teach you that at the beginning the surface of the Earth was smooth and featureless. They go on by saying that as the plates began to move, the water, which covered the Earth completely and evenly, began to gather to the deep spots leaving dry earth to appear, slowly at first, and then as islands and continents.

Now let's look at Genesis and the words of a simple goat herder trying to describe what he saw in a vision.

Genesis 1:2 And the Earth was  without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep (Water?) And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

So far there is no disagreement with Techtonic theory.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

Again, no disagreement! If we allow that Moses did not know the term Plate Techtonics (A Greek term) and simply used words at his disposal to describe a process that he did not understand we can then say that the BIble and Geological Science have common ground. It should be pointed out here that Techtonic theory did not come abobut until 1965, thus it can be rightly argued that the Bible had it right well before Science figured it out. What the scientists did was give process and explanation to an account that was just a simple observation.

My point is, where there are two diametrically opposed positions at work there can be, and usually is, a third position that might include both.

It is my firm belief that I and many other scientifically minded people can  hold to a religious belief while using science to explain the things  that are observed and recorded in books of scripture.

Porque não temos mais grandes cientistas como estes surgindo nas ultimas décadas? Talvez porque existem milhares de novos cientistas como eles nos dias de hoje e não passam de meros empregados de empresas vendendo seus conhecimentos para um poder maior. Claro! Quem sou para julgar? Provavelmente faria o mesmo, infelizmente.

Porém acredito que a resposta seja outra. Acredito que o porquê seja que agora se financia conhecimento de acordo com interesses egoístas. O estudo da ciência segue uma linha em que quem está financiando a traça, seja financiamento privado ou público. Não dando margem as estes novos cientistas.

Nos séculos passados, os nobres financiavam estes cientistas, sem grandes ganâncias, isso quando não se auto-financiavam numa época que isto ainda era possível. Eram pessoas que estavam imunes ao condicionamento que o mundo impunha e estavam dispostas a abrir mão da luxuria.

A grande questão é que o conhecimento caminha “de acordo” com o financiamento e não “apesar de”. Quando o assunto é financiamento privado as coisas são ainda piores, sendo que a partir do momento que o órgão privado detêm este conhecimento, tem a livre liberdade de fazer o que bem entende. Quando se trata de conhecimentos “supérfluos” como inovações automotivas, OK! Mas quando se trata de conhecimentos de interesse humanitários? Como vacinas, inovações cirúrgicas, biomecânica, etc. Este conhecimento é direito de quem? É certo privar o direto à vida ou à qualidade de vida das pessoas por interesses privados?

Ou seja, o conhecimento é adquirido através de financiamentos, controlados, a partir de interesses gananciosos. O quão limitado e presos a uma regra estamos?

♦♦♦

Caro Rino,

                    la domanda che mi poni, a mio avviso, deve partire da un elemento presupposto: la questione del conflitto tra universalità e particolarismo che percorrerà i secoli a venire (come aveva già interessato i secoli precedenti). L'umanesimo è universale, persegue una visione globale delle cose, una concezione del sapere in senso enciclopedico. Volgendosi al passato glorioso e culturalmente raffinato del mondo classico, ricerca la purezza e la precisione filologica delle sue testimonianze, che sono in fondo testimonianze di universalità (in particolare per il mondo latino). La nascita di forti monarchie contrapposte, gli aspri conflitti europei del periodo successivo, invece, causeranno una parcellazione spaziale di tutte le discipline, e in particolare della cultura (nonstante la presenza di una "Repubblica delle Lettere" che cercherà di resistere).  Le lingue volgari, lingue particolaristiche, si rafforzano a discapito del latino, lingua universale. Anche il modello dell'erudito rinascimentale, che vagheggiava un sapere enciclopedico, lascia il passo allo studioso specialista. Così, almeno, per buona parte del cinquecento e per tutto il seicento. A porre nuovamente la questione dell'universale saranno, nel corso del XVIII secolo, gli Enciclopedisti. Sarà proprio d'Alambert, nel suo Discorso preliminare all'Encyclopédie, a denunciare gli inconvenienti dell'utilizzo della lingua volgare: "un filosofo che vorrà istruirsi a fondo nelle scoperte dei predecessori dovrà riempirsi la memoria di sette o otto lingue diverse".

Constatato ciò, mi sembra di poter dire che l'apporto della stampa a caretteri mobili non abbia stimolato la diffusione delle lingue volgari; credo piuttosto che la stampa del quattro-cinquecento abbia cavalcato una tendenza, avversata dagli umanisti (tanto da far scrivere a Jacob Burckhardt "Il latinismo prevale in ogni ramo della cultura") ma suffragata dalla comunicazione quotidiana, ancora in nuce, ma che avrà un grande sviluppo nell'epoca delle divisioni statuali, tra la metà del cinquecento e la metà del settecento. Grazie all'universalità del latino, un libro pubblicato a Venezia, ad esempio, poteva essere venduto in Germania. I dotti avevano la possibilità di comunicare con facilità. Dopo il 1540 cominciò a svilupparsi un mercato parallelo, ma ancora di nicchia, di libri in lingua volgare, ma sarà il "popolo" (e quindi anche la letteratura di evasione da Boccaccio a Rabelais)  ad alimentare questo mercato. I dotti, cioè la stragrande maggioranza dei lettori, e in particolare gli scienziati, continuarono per molto tempo ad utilizzare esclusivamente la lingua latina.

E' pur vero che, come scrive Martin, alla fine del Seicento in Francia il 90% dei libri pubblicati è in volgare, ma tutte le opere scientifiche e filosofiche continueranno ad essere scritte e stampate in latino, come i Principia Mathematica (1687) di Isaac Newton, tanto per fare un esempio concreto.

Mi scrivi, poi, della censura perpetuata dalla Chiesa cattolica e della reazione negativa suscitata in vari strati della popolazione che avrebbe portato, in particolare in Germania, ad un avvicinamento alla dottrina riformata. Volevo aggiungere solo che la tendenza censoria non è tipica solamente della parte cattolica, ma pure di quella protestante, seppur con meno organizzazione. Ad esempio cito l'episodio del rogo dello studioso Michele Serveto e dei suoi libri, per mano dei sindaci di Ginevra e con la complicità dello stesso Calvino, il 27 ottobre 1553. Come vedi, come diceva Peguy, spesso nella storia "tutto comincia in mistica e tutto finisce in politica". E a proposito di questo drammatico tema, accennato anche da Artemisia: pensi che la distruzione volontaria dei libri da parte della censura abbia realmente ostacolato la diffusione della stampa?

A presto, 

                                                                                                                                    Alessio

 ♦♦♦

• Prima lettera, Rino ad Alessio
• Seconda lettera, Alessio a Rino
• Terza lettera, Rino ad Alessio

I have always wondered about the men who take things to the next level. Whether in the Sciences or the arts how do these great thinkers differ in their way of thinking and could their abilities be related to what today would be considered mental disorder. When thinking on this issue I have also wondered how many people today might have come up with some great thing but were disconnected from that special part of their mind by modern drugs so that they might appear normal.

Society demands its citizens act normal, a certain way of doing things that allows people to function in relative harmony.  So is a modern drug that helps a person think and act more normal a good thing? If a high percentage of the population were non-conforming eccentric thinkers Society would probably fall apart. You need normal people to have a society, you need that relative harmony.

So who can be weird and who needs to be normal. Have we snuffed out glorious possibilities so that some weird kid somewhere would sit still in school? If you think about this issue and look at all the possibilities is gets pretty interesting.

On that note here is an interesting article that gets to the heart of the issue, the weird geniuses.
John Nash
Edgar Allan Poe
Ludwig van Beethoven
Isaac Newton

Next week, scientists will conduct a key test on the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the CERN Laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland.

I know what you're thinking.  "Wow Paulano.  That's great."

Part of the reason for your feigned enthusiasm is that you don't know what the LHC is, or what it does.

The LHC is a particle accelerator that has been built in a 17-mile circular tunnel. It's purpose is to take 2 beams of protons moving at the speed of light, and slam them into one another.  The matter that is created from the collision should help scientists do several things:  1) detect dark matter for the first time, 2) understand why gravity is weaker than it is expected to be,  3)  figure out where all the anti-matter in the universe is hiding, and 4) settle once and for all the question of whether or not the Higgs boson fields exist.

"Wow Paulano," you say, "That's really great."

OK, now you're just handling me.  Maybe I'm not telling it right.

Lucky for Paulano, Kate McAlpine and Will Barras have put together a really entertaining and funny rap video that explains the whole thing a lot better than I can. You can see it on You Tube or Vimeo, and if you want a copy of the Large Hadron Rap Lyrics, you can click here. The video gets universally high ratings from world class physicists for its accurate science content.     Be sure to check it out and learn a thing or two.  Shot in the actual LHC tunnels and labs, the clip gives lay people insight to the cutting edge physics being done by modern day Newtons.   "Yo Isaac.  'Sup?"

News items like the LHC hold a lot interest for me, perhaps because the city I live in (Livermore, CA) is home to the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).  Not to be outdone, scientists there are working on the National Ignition Facility (NIF), a project which hopes to achieve nuclear fusion.   Last spring my wife, my daughter and I attended a terrific high school level Science on Saturday presentation at the Bankhead Theater given by Ed Moses, the NIF project director.  He didn't rap, but he was still very entertaining.

In both cases, there are those who fear that experiments such as LHC and NIF have the potential to lead to catastrophic disasters if they somehow go awry.   In the case of LHC, the worry is that it will create a black hole that will swallow the earth. Just in case, be sure to be extra nice to people.  OK?

Perhaps now is a better time than ever to check out the Kyle Design website for just the right gift for the scientist, physicist, student, or educator in your life.  Kyle provides unique personalized gifts for every occasion.

Technorati: Large Hadron Collider, LHC, Rap Video, Kate McAlpine, Will Barras, CERN Laboratory, Geneva, Switzerland, Dark Matter, gravity, antimatter, Higgs boson, LLNC, Livermore, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Isaac Newton, National Ignition Facility, NIF, California, Science on Saturday, black hole, gifts, Kyle Design, pillbox, vitamin case, business card holder, Ed Moses, Bankhead Theater, particle accelerator, science, physics, physicist

Writers are often told to write about what they know.  In the case of Ann Coulter, it appears she knows very little other than her far-right views.  Her polemic attacks, often vitriolic in nature, resemble propaganda more than they do reasoned and researched argument or comment.
 
When she steps outside the light shining from Ronald Reagan's beacon on the hill, Coulter stumbles around and, quite frankly, writes with an ignorance that is both alarming, and appalling, for someone educated at Ivy League Cornell University.
 
In her latest column, which attacks Joe Biden for plagiarizing a speech made by Neil Kinnock, a former leader of Britain's Labor Party, Coulter writes, "Far from sharing Kinnock's life story, the Biden family would have benefited from a strict British class system that holds up talentless aristocrats while keeping down the talented low-born."
 
Since when have the talented low-born in Britain been kept down?  Certainly not during the 55 years that I have been alive, 47 of which were spent living in the United Kingdom.
 
Here are just a few examples that serve to highlight her ignorance.  Former Prime Minister John Major was the son of a music-hall act.  He left school at 16 and never went to university.  He took a correspondence course in banking, quickly rose through the ranks at Standard Chartered Bank and then went on to hold the highest political office in the land.
 
One of Mrs. Thatcher's favorite ministers and closest advisers, Cecil Parkinson, is the son of a railway worker.  He won a scholarship to Cambridge University and read law.  Later he qualified as an accountant and set up his own business Parkinson-Hart securities before entering Parliament and pursing a political career.
 
Sir Michael Caine is the son of a fish market porter.  He never went to university but has become one of Britain's most famous actors, winning two Oscars.  Another Oscar winner, Sir Sean Connery, is the son of a factory worker.  His humble beginnings did not prevent him from becoming an international film star.
 
The Beatles swept America by storm in the 1960s and revolutionized the listening tastes of the world.  John, Paul, George and Ringo all come from a working-class background.

In the business world, Sir Alan Sugar is the son of a tailor, brought up in a council flat, never went to university and created the electronics firm Amstrad.
 
John Caudwell is from humble origins, raised in a terraced house in Stoke-on-Trent, never went to university and yet amassed a ₤1.6 billion fortune, with his mobile phone retailing business, which ranked him as 512th in the Forbes 2006 Rich List.
 
Even back in the 17th Century when the class system mirrored more closely Coulter's concept of British society, Isaac Newton came from a humble background but such was his scientific talent that he was given assistance to study at Cambridge University.
 
So where exactly are these talented low-born who have been kept down by the British class system?  Just like in the United States, opportunities may be denied because of a lack of wealth but rarely because of a lack of talent.
 
Coulter's Web page also has a blog, dated August 28, which contains the following: "Under FDR, America unilaterally attacked Nazi Germany for the sole purpose of regime change.  Important European allies, like France and Germany opposed us.  It cost U.S. taxpayers more than $300 billion.  More than 400,000 Americans were killed.  FDR carpet-bombed Germany [sic] cities, intentionally killing civilians."
 
It is an interesting quote not only in terms of the factual and historical inaccuracies it contains but also the appalling grammar.  I am beginning to wonder how she ever satisfied the entrance requirements for Cornell University.
 
Try submitting that quote to any British newspaper and the laughter would probably be heard as far away as New York.
 
Just for the record, Nazi Germany declared war on the United States.  In the prosecution of the war, the United States did not act unilaterally but in accord with Britain.  France was under Nazi occupation and since the war was fought against Germany, it is no surprise they were the opposition.  Britain's Bomber Command carpet-bombed more German cities, not Germany cities, than the U.S. Air Force ever did, although American bombers did take part in the raid on Dresden in 1944.
 
Coulter may have a sharp tongue, a quick mind and like the music of the Grateful Dead, but she should not let that fool her into thinking she is intelligent.  Nor is she a journalist; one of the basic tenets of journalism is to get the facts right.  As C.P. Scott once wrote in The Guardian, "Comment is free, but facts are sacred."  How he must be spinning in his grave at Coulter's media circus act.

I was one of the few individuals (actually, I don't know the precise number of individuals) who contacted the author after reading the book.  It was then that I learned that he sent out S.T.R.R.I.P. Tease bulletins to those who contacted him, free of charge.  (S.T.R.R.I.P. = Society To Restore Rationalism In Physics, or something to that effect.  Yes, he was a dirty old man.)  The S.T.R.R.I.P. Tease bulletins were further physics lessons that he had not included in his book.

Monson was/is (I don't know if he is still alive) an atheist and dedicated an entire chapter to debunking religion, but despite that, I had to send him some emails concerning the similarities I found in modern revelations with the physics he was proposing.  Needless to say, finding a spiritual counterpart in his theory didn't make him very happy and he tried to convince me of the errors of my ways.  I had fun corresponding with him and I think it was fun for him, too, as he was getting up there in age and most people just thought of him as "old Monson with the crazy space balls."  (Space balls was a theory he invented to help explain physics phenomena.)

Monson was set in his irreligious ways, and accepted a great deal of mainstream science, while attempting to debunk the rest that he felt did not hold up to rational, physics scrutiny.  He either wasn't aware of the plasma scientists and their experiments, or chose not to consider their results in his model of the Universe.  I believe that he simply didn't know about it.  I also believe that if he had known about it, he probably would not have liked it, as the discoveries plasma scientists make tend to confirm the scriptures, and he, being an atheist, probably would not have liked that very much.  Also, as he tended to ridicule everything he felt was wrong, if plasma science was available to him, and he thought it was erroneous, it probably would have gotten a mention in his book.

Let me just say here and now to Monson, if you are still alive: I thoroughly enjoyed your book and am glad it was written, both for its witticisms and its portrayals of new concepts. And if he is not alive, then to his son and any other surviving family members: Your departed relative made an impression for the better upon at least one individual on this planet.  I hope one day someone takes up and finishes his foundational work.

Physics Is Constipated (Intellectually That Is)

That is the title of Monson's book.  Even if the content was horrendous, the title alone would be hard to forget.  To his credit, though, it was engaging and fun.  Heck, even the front and back cover artwork and text were thought-provoking.  But it has been many years since I last read it.  So, what was my surprise when along comes an electrical theorist, Wallace Thornhill, proposing an electric gravity model in an electric universe and using words that seemingly conveyed the same types of thoughts as Monson?

Here is Thornhill's shortened, but nevertheless interesting paper:

Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe

Gravity, Einstein and Scientific Saints

Gravity is the most familiar force. We are subject to it every day of our lives. Newton gave us his ‘law of gravity,’ which describes its effect but doesn’t explain it. “I frame no hypotheses,” he wrote.  (Thornhill, first paragraph of Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe.)

Unlike Newton, Monson actually attempted to explain gravity.  And his explanation, using only two material types,  which he called structured space and structured matter, made pretty darn good sense.  Thornhill seems to build upon this Monsonian base—has he read Monson's book?—, including the all-important electrical connection.

Einstein wasn’t so prudent when he introduced his “postulates.”  Unfortunately, his unreal geometry doesn’t explain gravity either. The usual demonstration using heavy steel balls on a rubber sheet to represent ‘gravity wells’ relies on gravity as its own explanation!  (Thornhill, first paragraph of Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe.)

Thornhill throughout this article does the same thing Monson did: show the Einsteinian age as the death of rational physics.  Monson is a bit harsher in his denunciation of Einstein, whereas Thornhill at least gives Einstein the benefit of doubting his own words:

How has this situation arisen? In the 20th century technology perfected wireless communication and computers and got man into space, while fundamental science fell deeper into a ‘black hole’ of complication, illogicality and metaphysics. I consider the principal cause has been the usurping, since Einstein, of natural philosophy and physics by theoretical mathematicians. Meanwhile Einstein, perhaps to his credit, remained sceptical of his own work. (Thornhill, 6th paragraph of Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe, emphasis mine.)

Monson spoke of the scientific community with disdain as being made up of "scientific saints" and "scientific priests."  In this paper, Thornhill quotes Mike Disney in his footnotes as saying:

The most unhealthy aspect of cosmology is its unspoken parallel with religion. Both deal with big but probably unanswerable questions. The rapt audience, the media exposure, the big book-sale, tempt priests and rogues, as well as the gullible, like no other subject in science.

The Aether and the Michelson-Morley Experiment

Monson was a believer in the Aether.  He rejected the concept that space was filled with nothing.  In his view, there were but two elements that made up the entire Universe: structured space and structured matter and the interaction between these two elements as they competed for the same volume of space accounted for all of the seen and unseen energy manifestations around us.  He believed in simplification as the key to the promulgation of the sciences among the masses.  The structured space was the motive element whereas the sctructured matter was basically just pushed around.  Each element was completely opposite in its qualities.  For example, one could be compressed and deformed like a hollow balloon whereas the other was a dense ball of super hard, indestructible stuff.  There was no volume of space that was not occupied by either structured space or structured matter.

Sound familiar?  When I brought to his attention Lehi's writings of that which acts and that which is acted upon (see 2 Ne. 2: 13-14) or the Lord's revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants about the Light of Christ filling the immensity of space (see D&C 88: 12), etc., he wasn't too happy, but I was pleased to see that he had come to these conclusions on his own, independent of the word of God, merely by observing nature.

Monson's major problem was the Michelson-Morley experiment, which had apparently failed to detect the aether.  His solution was a modification to that experiment that, in his estimation, would have shown that the aether does, in fact, exist.  (He believed that the experiment failed because the experimenters didn't know what to look for.)  At any rate, as the experiment had been discredited as a failure, any newbie (such as Monson) contending that the aether was real was laughed at as a crackpot.

Thornhill in this paper brings up the same Michelson-Morley experiment, adding, though, that Dayton Miller repeated the experiment and found an aether drift! Monson, apparently, was not aware of that fact, as Miller was written out of the text books, which would have helped his case immensely.

Structure, structure, everywhere

As stated above, Monson believed the Universe was composed of structured material of two types.  Thornhill, likewise, addresses the Universe as structured, even taking the electron and breaking it down into smaller structures called subtrons.

Gravity, Electromagnetism and Inertia

Both men tie gravity, electromagnetism and inertia to the same common source: the aether.  Whereas Monson contended that the aether "deformed balloons" pushed back at structured matter to produce gravity, Thornhill explains that the minute, structural, electric dipoles align in one direction to produce gravity.  In either case, all manifestation of any type is explained from a single source.

Gravity is a Variable

Both Monson and Thornhill come to the same conclusion: gravity varies depending upon the aether environment. Monson described the aether environment in terms of compression and torsion and Thornhill describes it in terms of charge and electricity.

The speed of light and gravity

Both men also address the near instantaneous speed of gravity, no matter how far the distances, and the slowness of light.  Both Monson and Thornhill address the e=mc2 equation, including when the speed of light is put into the equation.  Neither man gets time slowing down or Alice in Wonderland Effects.  Everything remains based in reality and rationalism.  However, Monson, again, explains things using compression and torsion, while Thornhill explains it in electrical terms.  Both men, though, make sense.

Mass

Monson and Thornhill both explain mass in terms of the aether environment and not as "quantity of matter."  As a result, this opens up the possibility that mainstream science's expectation of fluffy, spongy or hollow bodies could turn out to be solid and dense while the expectation of solid and dense bodies could turn out to be hollow or spongy.

Thornhill, in fact, draws from recent cometary and asteroid evidence, which should have shown fluffy snowballs (the comets) but instead showed apparently dense rocks, suggesting that our models—of what type of a body ought to produce the gravitational field were are seeing—are inaccurate.  Monson, whose book was written in the 1980's, never had this astronomical data to work from.

Electric Gravity and Hollow Planets

Electric, or aether-generated gravity opens up the very real possibility of the planets being hollow.  The current thoughts on gravity, that it requires a certain amount of matter to have a certain amount of gravity, preclude many planets from being hollow.  They must be solid in order to account for the amount of gravity detected.  So, if gravity is shown to have an electric connection, the main obstacle to hollow planets vanishes altogether.

Although Monson never intended to promote the hollow earth theory, his model could be equally applied to both solid and hollow planets, without destroying it (the model).  Likewise, Thornhill's model is also consistent with hollow spheres or structures, both on the subatomic level and on the planetary or galactic scale.  The electric universe theorists usually do not categorically state that their model favors a hollow planets scenario, as they are marginalized by the mainstream scientists enough, as it is, but as one reads more and more of their findings, it becomes apparent that it does.

Black holes

The major break between Monson and Thornhill is their opinion of black holes.  Whereas Monson accepted that black holes do, in fact, exist, Thornhill and the other plasma scientists think it's just a mathematical invention, an imaginary device that has no counterpart in the real world.  But, again, Monson didn't have the plasma data to work with.  If he had, he might have discarded the notion of black holes, too.

LDS Scientists: Pay Attention

The plasma theorists and scientists are on the cutting edge.  Despite being largely ignored by the mainstream, they are forging ahead and breaking new ground.  It would be to our benefit (as an LDS community) to pay attention to their findings.  The day may come that we will have to rebuild society.  If and when that happens, a proper understanding of all physics findings will be needed to correct the errors perpetuated by the current scientific community, your non-LDS peers, otherwise we LDS will be no better off or no more enlightened than any other people on the planet, regardless of the gospel knowledge we possess.  The electrical connection may be the most important of all.

The keys to correcting the errors are the scientific anomalies, which invalidate many theories.  Often we don't hear about these anomalies.  They are briefly reported and then swept under the rug.  Out of sight, out of mind and the current popular scientific theory remains intact.  Inform yourself about the anomalies. Bring them up, focus on them and seek to correct the errors.  A knowledge of the plasma research will help as that field of research addresses anomalies.

Previous Plasma Theology article: The hollow earth theory, the plasma model and Mormon theology

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

I will also respond to his questions as well which will give you a take of what I see from the Coyote program right now. Enjoy our answers.

How will new Offensive Coordinator Gordon Shaw affect South Dakota's offense?

Gordon Shaw put together some strong offenses at Minnesota. He should continue that tradition at USD, but they already have a strong offense as we know.

Shaw loves to run the football with not one but two to three solid running backs, which is what Ed Meierkort loves to do, so basically Meierkort found a guy that thinks like him in terms of the running game. They also agree on having a strong offensive line, which USD also has.

The major change will be how the tight ends are used in the passing game. They have always played a key role in the blocking game, but Shaw always used the tight ends in the passing game at Minnesota. So you should see Mitch Mohr, London Landry, and even Branden White to be more involved in the offense. They are all very good size and can shed a linebacker, either physically or speed wise, so they create a matchup problem for about any defense.

The downer is White will be out for the first game and hopefully just the first game. White suffered a foot injury that required minor surgury. White is the lone senior among the tight ends and is a smart guy who has really picked up the offense and can play the fullback position. He plays a key role in the Coyotes offense so hopefully he is just out for one week.

Will Matt Lee be able to carry the load at running back?

I think he can, but he won't. Not because he can't, but because the Coyotes have four running backs who would start for most other FCS schools.

Chris Ganious will get the first snap on Saturday from what I have been told. Both Lee and Ganious are the same running, Ganious is a little bigger though. They both have speed, can make tacklers miss, and they can break tackles. They both will see a good amount of playing time and will have a major impact on the running game.

Dion Foster and Isaac Newton will both have their fair share of carries as well. They will serve as the big backs for the Coyotes. Foster lost 15 pounds in the offseason and added more muscle. He is looking great in practice and his cuts have been great. He could surprise a lot of people this year. Remember he was a blue chip prospect when Wisconsin signed him.

Newton is another big guy Meierkort likes and he will see some time. Newton is a junior and will split time with Foster in that role.

The Coyotes will run for a lot of yards with four quality backs. As Amos Allen proved last year, no need to worry about the running game because the Coyotes have had one of the best ground games since Meierkort took over the program.

Who will be Noah Shepard's biggest target this year?

With so many receptions to replace, the passing game would be down this year you would think. Enter redshirt freshman Dustin Nowotny.

Nowotny was a beast for St. Thomas Moore and he was a beast on the practice squad last year. He has continued to be a beast in spring ball and fall camp and look for him to continue it on the field on Saturdays. Nowotny has so big time talent. He has height, speed, physical presense, hands, and awareness. He could break Brooks Little's career reception record. If you don't believe me, ask Brooks for yourself.

Dan Skelly will be the number one receiver and the leader of the wide receivers and Nowotny the two, but Nowotny will be the main guy I think.

Meierkort has said Ben Oberle will be the number three wide-out and has been impressed with Oberle. He has said Oberle just had something click and has put it all together and has been impressive. Let's hope this continues and Oberle can grab the job and run with it. From his track experience, we know he can run.

The fourth and fifth job is up for grabs. Right now true freshman Jeremy Blount will be at one of those slots. He will also return punts and kick-offs. He has impressed the staff as a true freshman. It doesn't hurt when you can run 4.40 40's. He is undersized but he will blow by defenders. It will be interesting how much time he will see.

Dustin Little has been hampered by a hamstring injury which has set him back considerably. He will have to work hard to work up the wide-out ladder. Also Dominic Artis is the other guy in the mix. He is another guy with great size and speed.

The passing game will not be lacking this year as there is a lot of talent yet. But expect Nowotny to be the guy.

How will the defense perform this season?

Senior Blake Hojer will lead the defense as the middle linebacker and he says the seniors have to step up and lead the defense for them to be successful.

They have gone back to the basics and it will take some games to see how it works.

Tyler Spease will be one of the outside linebackers after making great strides from blowing out his knee last year. He has looked great in fall camp.

The defense line will be strong even with the losses of Zach Johnson and John Morales. Wayne Curry, Ko Quaye, Joey White, and Abe Booker will all rotate and have played great in the past and in camp.

The defense backfield is a little confusing. Quincy Christie is playing so well that they have decided they might play TJ Simmons at the free safety. Right now Bryan Bullock and Joel Gentile as the safetys, but the problem is they are both strong safetys, so that's why Simmons might play some free safety. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

How they will perform is always the question, but if they can tackle and play coverage, I think they will be fine.

What is the biggest obstacle for the Coyotes this season?

Winning the Great West.

During media day, Meierkort said the team's number one goal is to win the Great West Conference. It's a great goal to have but it will be very difficult for the Coyotes.

The Great West is a five-team conference. The Coyotes will play three Great West games. So basically the Coyotes have to win out to win the Great West.

One of those games will be against Cal Poly who is ranked number 14 in the nation and the game is at Cal Poly. Plus the Coyotes will have another battle with "rival" and fellow Great West member North Dakota. Two hard games for the Coyotes to win the Great West.

What is the biggest game of the year?

The biggest game to me is the Northern Iowa game. UNI is a team that is a contender for the FCS title the last three to four years. They are a team in the region the Coyotes have been battling for recruits for the past couple of years as well.

This is the team the Coyotes want to model their Division I move after. Playing them will basically be the measuring stick for the Coyotes. UNI is ranked fourth in the country and the game will be at the Uni-Dome. I am from Iowa, and the Uni-Dome is the Holy Grail of high school football in Iowa since the championships are played there. It is a loud place and a better version of the DakotaDome.

USD should take notes when they go there, because I hope this develops into a long rivalry.

-------------Justin Rust

ET = MD