From: Ray Dickenson <ray.dickenson.nul>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 07:39:06 +0100
Fwd Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:25:08 -0400
Subject: Re: Are We Missing Something? - Dickenson


Hello List,

Thanks to Steven, Bob and Nick for back-up.

Do you think we might go further with what we have now?

To start with - Planck said (paraphrased) "We can't see reality
by using our bodily senses"

http://tinyurl.com/fkpqr

Why? Because our senses work by receiving impulses from
'photons' - which are generated by electron - proton movements.
In other words, we can only see or feel energy transfers from
other protonic matter like ourselves. But most of the universe
is made of different stuff and doesn't generate photons. So to
us it's invisible. And all our work and movements depend on
inertia and mass - which are unknowns.

Einstein later confessed his great fear for the protonic
universe - "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures."

http://tinyurl.com/rx7c3

Obviously Einstein was being forced to the conclusion that the
cause of inertia and mass wasn't a steady field but, as
indicated by Planck's quanta, an intermittent (though regular
and very high-speed) force. In other words he was saying that we
- and the visible protonic universe - are 'non-constant
structures'; that we flicker in and out of existence, like
frames on fast forward.

So how do we see the world and each other as solid? The answer
might be simple - the whole protonic universe is subject to that
inertia-causing force, therefore it's all in synch (so far as we
know).

Anyway, the human brain can blur "now" for up to a second or so
without us noticing, except during very fast action and then it
gets confused. E.g. - when you first switch on a device it's
not unusual to see the indicator light up just before you've
pressed the switch - but only the first time. The thoughtful
slow part of your brain (cerebrum) was pressing the switch while
the primitive fast part (cerebellum) was seeing the light.
That's why learner drivers seem so slow to us cerebellum-using
hotshots.

Does it help to know about inertia? Well, let's say we find a
proximate cause of inertia. Not the ultimate cause, just one
step up.

We could maybe manipulate that proximate cause. Civilization,
buildings, energy-sources and transport could be transformed
beyond recognition. Also, with some control of inertia there's
no need for rockets, because 'escape velocity' doesn't matter.
You simply ascend at 1g (most of you'll know that a steady
acceleration of 1g could get you near relativistic speed in
quite a short time).

Even better, manipulating the inertia-causing field will need
sensors, inertia-field radar, inertia-field cameras. We might
then find that other folk are already doing it - and quite close
to us. No need for SETI.

The scenario follows logically from the conclusions of Planck,
then Einstein.

So - why hasn't it been tested in the last fifty years?

BTW - example of limitations of 'scientific common sense' in a
well-educated, well-informed chap.

http://tinyurl.com/f4r7s - edit/find for: Etesian Winds

It shouldn't embarrass modern scientists - he's been safely gone
for 2,400 years or so.


Cheers

Ray D