Another Argument Against Genetic
Engineering
I read with great interest your short argument about the
drawbacks of human eugenics through genetic engineering. Gregory
Bateson, in his book "Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity" (originally
published by Dutton in 1979) argues that natural selection is a feedback
process which is governed naturally by the statistics of population genetics
(my words).
I am surprised that more of the serious opponents of genetic engineering
have not used his arguments, as he draws crucial distinctions between
well-regulated feedback processes and poorly regulated feedback processes,
across a variety of systems levels.
Bateson's book provides a very sound theoretical basis for argument against
Genetic engineering.
Cheers,
Robert Rands
rrands@southcom.com.au
Hobart, Tasmania
Is Archeology Science?
Doesn't the scientific method also use observation, as well
as experimentation? So isn't a lot of archeology based on the scientific
method as well as hypothesis, theory, and speculation. Thanks for your time.
Ron L9ron@aol.com
Dr. Siepmann responds:
There are aspects of archeology that can be subject to the
scientific method (i.e. carbon dating) but archeology can not unless you can
replicate an entire world and modify a parameter that you wish to test to
prove your hypothesis. This does not mean that archeology is not a Science.
Though many consider only the physical sciences to be Science, I offer the
broader definition of:
The field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of
the universe in whole or part.
You should review my editorial on this subject at
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm.
Gravity as Acceleration
Gravity isn't a force of attraction. Gravity is a force of
acceleration. In the scientist's dictionary, "acceleration" is defined as a
change in direction. Massive bodies aren't attracted to each each other,
they are changing each others direction, they are "accelerating" each other.
Evidence of this exists in the famous two slit experiment. Whether this
experiment is carried out with photons, electrons or atoms, the result is
always the same. Turn off the particle detector and you get 2D inverse
square law (dictated) "wave pattern". Turn on the particle detector and you
get a 3D inverse square law (dictated) "divergent pattern."
I suspect this is caused by the probability state of each introduced
photon/particle/atom superpositioning with itself when it is forced to wrap
around a massive object or single atom. Turning on the particle detector
emits some kind of EM (Electromagnetic Force) which prevents the introduced
photon/particle/atom-s' probability state from superpositioning with itself.
No matter what the explanation, without a particle detector emitting an EM
Force, the particle passing through the experiment takes a different
trajectory to what it would with the particle detector switched on. This
amounts to a change in direction in anybody's book!
Particle detectors do not exist in nature as such. This means every photon,
free-particle or atom has a probability state propagating in every
direction. As this propagating probability state wraps around any other
quantized state of energy/matter, it's probability state will superposition
with itself - sometimes many times over. Each piece of energy/matter does
this to every other piece of energy/matter within range of its probability
state.
The other key piece of evidence is the inverse square law pattern of wave
interference (superposition - acceleration) observed on the film/screen used
in the particular two slit experiment.
Take this concept and apply it to radius determined space/time. In other
words, the two slit experiment radiates its results or 'output' in all
directions from the center of a body of mass. Is this why gravity or
space/time curvature is subject to the inverse square law?
Gravity cannot be a force of attraction for one simple reason. Opposites
attract - Likes repel. Everything we know about binary states tell us that
every piece of matter cannot possibly be "oppositely" charged to every other
piece of matter. This is a most serious non-conformance. Gravity as a force
of acceleration is far more likely. (Ockham's Razor). It also explains why
mass density is so important. Forget graviton particles, that also defies
binary basics of attract and repel.
In fact, I am certain that all matter repels all other matter as such. A
binary dance of stars tells me they are repelling each other yet trying to
occupy the same point in space/time.
IS the cosmic microwave background really remnants of the big bang or is it
simply a probability state superposition driven average mean temperature of
the universe? Do these photons' probability states keep wrapping around
matter they pass by (or through?), over and over, until they have
superpositioned themselves down to the very bottom of the EM Spectrum? This
is just an educated guess based on what I have just theorized and will need
experiments to confirm or deny.
If it is confirmed, it will set the big bang theory back on its heels.
Redshifted DEEP Space objects may also suffer from a similar problem.
Expansion of the universe is not the only reason light from distant galaxies
could be redshifted. The fact that distance is directly proportional to the
amount of redshift is an interesting coincidence. I don't know of any other
naturally occurring acceleration to behave in this manner.
A laser that reflects pumped photons back onto a population converter is
said to be 'Lasing' the photons. Another way of explaining this is to say it
is subjecting the photons frequency to Doppler shift.
The pattern of galactic expansion is impossible. If the galaxies are all
moving away from each other it means they MUST also be moving towards each
other. There is no empty space for them to move into. This is a dimensional
quandary, and its a doosy!
Which came first, the atom or the free-state particle/photon?
Do particles form inside the atom or does the atom capture them?
The answer to this question could also put the big bang theory back on its
heels. No atoms - no particles - no probability state superposition, no
gravity force of acceleration. Which came first?
A universe that is always here is hard for our conscious mind to grasp.
Probability state superposition also undermines the basis of multiple
universe theory.
What is the probability state?
Answer this question if you want to understand our universe.
glen angus graham
redshift@senet.com.au
relativity theorist
Adelaide, South Australia