Brian Redman
2005-06-28 10:54:38 UTC
Insipid Realities
(Conspiracy Nation, 06/28/05) -- Conspiracy Nation is a reality; it is
not the reality. It is an attempt at a counter-reality, to confound the
persistent dominant "reality" constantly being propounded.
Were the events themselves of September 11, 2001 the ultimate upset? Or
was it rather the massive "reality" blitz concurrent with the events
which yielded such anguish? Night and day there was an enormous amount
of "reality" construction occuring. Almost simultaneously with 9/11 the
event had already been "solved" and stunned Americans, in a
psychologically weakened state, had endless castor oil poured down their
throats.
And then came the cry: "No more castor oil!" The "reality" of 9/11 was
an instant monument and only blasphemers would dare to question the
sacred edifice.
A Roman author, Lucretius, once wrote a book describing "the nature of
things" (De Rerum Natura). He wrote about the conservation of matter,
that "nothing can be created out of nothing." He wrote about "bodies"
and "void." He wrote about "time," which "exists not by itself": "no man
feels time by itself apart from the motion or quiet rest of things."
Isaac Newton came along, hundreds of years later, and added mathematics
to the mix. The mathematics "proved" certain things, according to the
zeitgeist. (See "Newton's Zeitgeist,"
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/Zeitgeist.html)
Newton is credited as the "force" behind the industrial revolution. Is
that good or bad? William Blake thought the latter, and ridiculed
Newtonian physics.
A limitation of "science" occured. There began to be an obsession with
measurement. (See "Can It Be Measured?"
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/Measured.html)
Great pains were taken to measure the Speed Of Light (SOL). The U.S.
government, in 1963, officially declared it to be 186,281.7 miles per
second. But "Martin," responding to the Conspiracy Nation report on this
("Can It Be Measured?" op. cit.), posted this response in newsgroups:
"oh, I should have pointed out that you got the speed of light wrong two
posts ago. What does that say about the rest of the crap you've been
posting?"
The SOL figure cited by Conspiracy Nation had come from a book by Isaac
Asimov, a respected science writer. However Asimov's book is admitedly
dated. Checking the Wikipedia reference for "Speed Of Light," it is
given as 186,282.4 miles per second. Furthermore, according to the
latest rulings of "science," this figure for SOL is defined, not measured.
Seeking to clarify matters, in a newsgroup response posting, this editor
inquired, "Can it be that Speed of Light as measured is 186,281.7 miles
per second but Speed of Light as defined is 186,282.4 miles per second?"
To this, "Martin" responded "No." He states that "length and time are
derived from the speed of light" and adds "they for a set of axioms that
cannot be (well, are not) self-contradictory." This last quotation is
hard to decipher. It is taken to mean an inverted situation, where
"distance" and "time" are defined by the Speed Of Light.
Measurement of "motion" once required The Ether, something "defined" to
be at "absolute rest." Otherwise, how could "motion" be measured? It
would be "real" compared to what? In "Ether Abandoned"
(http://www.shout.net/~bigred/Ether.html), it was reported how The Ether
was summarily dismissed as "no longer necessary." This decision was
later regretted by Albert Einstein. "Most physics students learn from
their textbooks that in 1905 Einstein banished the ether from physics as
part of the revolution initiated by his special theory of relativity.
What they generally do not learn is that in 1916 he reintroduced the
concept..." Einstein's New Ether "differed fundamentally from the ether
he had banished." ("Why Einstein reinvented the ether," physicsweb
review of book, Einstein and the Ether by Ludwik Kostro. physicsweb.org)
To this, The Ether responds, "The 'scientists' are the ones who are in
'relative motion.' As for me, I can sit and wait." ("Ether Abandoned!"
op. cit.)
Mr. "Martin" demands, "I STILL don't understand your point in posting
all this pseudo stuff." (a.k.a. "the crap you've been posting"). The
"point" is, as per above, "an attempt at a counter-reality, to confound
the persistent dominant 'reality' constantly being propounded." Einstein
himself admits, "We have seen new realities created by the advance of
physics." ("History Of Physics: Einstein, Lorentz, and the Ether,"
scienceweek.com) These "realities" affect us as they are disseminated
into public awareness and too-blindly accepted. The previous Newtonian
zeitgeist gave us the industrial revolution. How shall the latest
zeitgeist affect us? We ought to be asking questions.
-------
Conspiracy Nation
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html
(Conspiracy Nation, 06/28/05) -- Conspiracy Nation is a reality; it is
not the reality. It is an attempt at a counter-reality, to confound the
persistent dominant "reality" constantly being propounded.
Were the events themselves of September 11, 2001 the ultimate upset? Or
was it rather the massive "reality" blitz concurrent with the events
which yielded such anguish? Night and day there was an enormous amount
of "reality" construction occuring. Almost simultaneously with 9/11 the
event had already been "solved" and stunned Americans, in a
psychologically weakened state, had endless castor oil poured down their
throats.
And then came the cry: "No more castor oil!" The "reality" of 9/11 was
an instant monument and only blasphemers would dare to question the
sacred edifice.
A Roman author, Lucretius, once wrote a book describing "the nature of
things" (De Rerum Natura). He wrote about the conservation of matter,
that "nothing can be created out of nothing." He wrote about "bodies"
and "void." He wrote about "time," which "exists not by itself": "no man
feels time by itself apart from the motion or quiet rest of things."
Isaac Newton came along, hundreds of years later, and added mathematics
to the mix. The mathematics "proved" certain things, according to the
zeitgeist. (See "Newton's Zeitgeist,"
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/Zeitgeist.html)
Newton is credited as the "force" behind the industrial revolution. Is
that good or bad? William Blake thought the latter, and ridiculed
Newtonian physics.
A limitation of "science" occured. There began to be an obsession with
measurement. (See "Can It Be Measured?"
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/Measured.html)
Great pains were taken to measure the Speed Of Light (SOL). The U.S.
government, in 1963, officially declared it to be 186,281.7 miles per
second. But "Martin," responding to the Conspiracy Nation report on this
("Can It Be Measured?" op. cit.), posted this response in newsgroups:
"oh, I should have pointed out that you got the speed of light wrong two
posts ago. What does that say about the rest of the crap you've been
posting?"
The SOL figure cited by Conspiracy Nation had come from a book by Isaac
Asimov, a respected science writer. However Asimov's book is admitedly
dated. Checking the Wikipedia reference for "Speed Of Light," it is
given as 186,282.4 miles per second. Furthermore, according to the
latest rulings of "science," this figure for SOL is defined, not measured.
Seeking to clarify matters, in a newsgroup response posting, this editor
inquired, "Can it be that Speed of Light as measured is 186,281.7 miles
per second but Speed of Light as defined is 186,282.4 miles per second?"
To this, "Martin" responded "No." He states that "length and time are
derived from the speed of light" and adds "they for a set of axioms that
cannot be (well, are not) self-contradictory." This last quotation is
hard to decipher. It is taken to mean an inverted situation, where
"distance" and "time" are defined by the Speed Of Light.
Measurement of "motion" once required The Ether, something "defined" to
be at "absolute rest." Otherwise, how could "motion" be measured? It
would be "real" compared to what? In "Ether Abandoned"
(http://www.shout.net/~bigred/Ether.html), it was reported how The Ether
was summarily dismissed as "no longer necessary." This decision was
later regretted by Albert Einstein. "Most physics students learn from
their textbooks that in 1905 Einstein banished the ether from physics as
part of the revolution initiated by his special theory of relativity.
What they generally do not learn is that in 1916 he reintroduced the
concept..." Einstein's New Ether "differed fundamentally from the ether
he had banished." ("Why Einstein reinvented the ether," physicsweb
review of book, Einstein and the Ether by Ludwik Kostro. physicsweb.org)
To this, The Ether responds, "The 'scientists' are the ones who are in
'relative motion.' As for me, I can sit and wait." ("Ether Abandoned!"
op. cit.)
Mr. "Martin" demands, "I STILL don't understand your point in posting
all this pseudo stuff." (a.k.a. "the crap you've been posting"). The
"point" is, as per above, "an attempt at a counter-reality, to confound
the persistent dominant 'reality' constantly being propounded." Einstein
himself admits, "We have seen new realities created by the advance of
physics." ("History Of Physics: Einstein, Lorentz, and the Ether,"
scienceweek.com) These "realities" affect us as they are disseminated
into public awareness and too-blindly accepted. The previous Newtonian
zeitgeist gave us the industrial revolution. How shall the latest
zeitgeist affect us? We ought to be asking questions.
-------
Conspiracy Nation
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html