Author

Topic: A message from our old friend (Read 4252 times) 

David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2615 Reputation: 8.51 Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.


A message from our old friend
« on: 20020405 15:18:55 » 

From: Everett E. Allie specieup@paradista.net Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 12:54:50 0500 To: david@lucifer.com Subject: Hello, David
Hello, David:
Just a note to say Hi, and, perhaps, to gig the Hermit just a little. Analytic MetaPhysics is alive and well. The big work, 'The Rings of Reality' is about to go to the publisher. I am working on my second book, "The Genesis Particle', and starting to approach young physics majors who are still open to the possibility that something might be wrong with Theoretical Physics and the Quantum Mechanics/Reletivity approach. (I'm also having some fun with their professors, as well)
As you might expect, AMP remains unscathed and invulnerable, and is gaining some followers, some who are even immersed in the new system. I am spending less time on discussion groups and more on writing and targeting individuals and groups that have already achieved a recognition of some of the foundation realities.
The following is a little mind tweak I've been sending around:
Quote:Ft. Lauderdale, FL:
The Genesis Particle
The 'Genesis Particle' is the discovery of R. Stewart Hall, an engineer from the USA who worked out the new descriptive system for physics, 'Analytic MetaPhysics'. This system is based on LaPlace Mathematics and treats matter as motion, as matter is inextricable from motion, requiring a mathematical approach capable of reflecting the geometric requirements of motion.
The new system bridges the gap between physical and metaphysical existence, providing an algorithmic portrayal of existence below the level of the atom. The Genesis particles are the smallest units of existence. The particle is calculated in terms of volume in cubic centimeters, but can functionally translate either as volume or energy (e.g.: charge, pressure, thermodynamics, etc.). This particle has a natural speed of 'c', the speed of light and the fundamental speed of existence. It latches together with others of its kind to form ring patterns, the foundation of structure. In addition to forming structure, the Genesis Particle functions to affect all energy and motion transfers, and accounts for, and sets the parameters of, all that can exist. Its formula is:
dvo3 = (2 ? / 137 x ao)3 cc = The Genesis Particle (GP)
dvo = (2 ? / 137 x ao) cm = The Universal Referent (UR)
(ao) = 2.81794 E 13 cm, the radius of the electron at 0.51 mev,
Note: Regarding the problem of transmitting mathematics equations in ASCII, the following
clarifications:
'dvo3' should be read 'dv subscript zero, the quantity to the third power', as the volume of the 'Genesis Particle' in cubic centimeters. This is the smallest unit volume in nature.
'dvo' should be read as 'dv subscript zero', the cube root of dvo3, the Universal Referent length in centimeters, and the smallest meaningful length in nature. This is a Universal Referent which can be mathematically treated to address any physics phenomenon, demonstrating the fundamental unity of the universe and universality of its foundation entity unit.
'ao' should be read as 'a subscript zero', and is the standard length of the radius of an electron, as recorded in the Compendium to the Nuclide Chart.
The Universal Referent is simply the cube root of the fundamental unit volume, and can be mathematically treated to address the entire range of physics phenomena, providing a relatively simple, direct and definitive means of working in physics, in the absence of a need for unit shifts and the numerous corrective constants, as required by present methodologies.
For more information: specieup@paradista.net
We are soon to have a new web site, http://www.speciesup.org

Take care and always remember that there is only one ultimate referent, that of physical existence, itself.
Everett E. Allie




Zloduska
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 113 Reputation: 6.77 Rate Zloduska
Handcuffs are for amateurs.


Re:A message from our old friend
« Reply #1 on: 20020405 18:32:41 » 

Pardon my French, but what a fucking fanatical freak. Gah.
Doesn't he realize that if you replace key words like "Analiffic Pataphysics" with theological terms, he sounds no different from a Christian fundamentalist evangelist?
Every day rabid street preachers from Indiana approach unsuspecting and undeserving philosophy students on college campuses, trying to open their hearts and minds to the "truth" of Jesus Christ and the Holy Babble. Everrett is no different from these other delusional selfcentered old men.
In short: _L00Z3rZ!!!_ Get a life or take your own.






rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318 Reputation: 8.23 Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...


Re:A message from our old friend
« Reply #4 on: 20020525 23:24:41 » 

In fact, the "nutty formula", as badly written as it is, might mean something, but I'll have to dig out my old books to find out what. It contains the "fine structure constant" e^2/hc = 1/137 (aproximately) and reminds me something from quantum electrodynamics.
However, you might want to check Everett's book at
http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/origin/contents.shtml
where he develops his theory of everything. Or you could search in the archives of the BBS mailing list, where he has also inscribed his name in the history of COV.




Zloduska
Magister
Gender:
Posts: 113 Reputation: 6.77 Rate Zloduska
Handcuffs are for amateurs.


Re:A message from our old friend
« Reply #5 on: 20020526 20:44:58 » 

Quote from: elphTeq on 20020524 09:28:58 I think you have both misinterpreted the email:

Excuse me, but I did not. Everett is an old man who is not quite with it, and even I who has little interest in or knowledge of Mathematics, knows that all his theories are crap. Were you aware that he thinks there is one 'factual existence of Nature/Reality'? He's been posting this nonsense for a long time, was practically spamming the mailing list and refused to really debate with anyone or answer and direct questions that challenged him. He was like a toy with a string that would repeat the same damn phrases every time you gave a yank. And we stopped pulling, so he left. If you would have done your homework, you would have had the bigger picture in mind, and also been a bit familiar with my personality, and less likely to criticize.
Quote: The following is a little mind tweak I've been sending around:
precedes the "nutty formula". Metaphysical humour? Ultimate rationalisation of everything? I dont think he is serious.

Actually, he is quite serious. Again, you should have done your homework.
Quote: These guys are our allies! Glad you guys weren't on the welcoming commitee.
Think before you leap.

No, get some background information before you make hasty judgments. Crackpots like EA and his drones are certainly not our allies.
Have a metaphysical analiffic day.




MoEnzyme
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 2256 Reputation: 7.93 Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal


Re:A message from our old friend
« Reply #6 on: 20020624 17:08:38 » 

[elphTeq] I think you have both misinterpreted the email:
The following is a little mind tweak I've been sending around:
precedes the "nutty formula". Metaphysical humour? Ultimate rationalisation of everything? I dont think he is serious.
[Jake] The sad part is that he IS serious. We have plenty of history with which to interpret Everest Always. If our attitude towards him concerns you, perhaps you should scan the archives for his Everestsized loads of crap. It is fully warranted.
[elphTeq] Further more, i checked out the website:
http://www.speciesup.org/
These guys are our allies! Glad you guys weren't on the welcoming commitee.
[Jake] The welcoming committee for Everrett was about a year ago (or more?), and we more than graciously granted him bandwidth to explore his ideas with us at that time. Unfortunately he proved less than up to the task as he met the criticisms from the church with same obliviousness that this last message from him displays. As he alludes himself, he remains invulnerable to criticism. This is not workable scientific attitude, though it makes for a rather familiar religious stance.
[elphTeq] Think before you leap.
[Jake] Um . . . yeah right . . . whatever, like I said, go back and read the loads of crap he dumped on us before you start criticizing our reaction much more. Like you say, Think before you leap.

I will fight your gods for food, Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)



rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318 Reputation: 8.23 Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...


A leftbrained humor post
« Reply #7 on: 20020914 18:11:31 » 

[rhinoceros] Here is some background material about the magic number 137 and Everett's 137 sided polygon.
Notable Properties of Specific Numbers
http://home.earthlink.net/~mrob/pub/math/numbers4.html
This constant has been the subject of much speculation by those who would like to see it have some precise mathematical value. The only problem is, more accurate experimental results always seem to prove them wrong. For a while Eddington tried to prove that it was exactly 136, and later in his life repeated the work for 137. Recently Mr. Michael Wales in the UK proposed that it is precisely the cube root of 2573380, or 137.0359896... based on the best available estimates at the time (which were thirdorder). There is also Leahy (see the entry for 82944). Most recently, at Dr. James Gilson's web site www.finestructureconstant.org he proposes this value for alpha:
(cos(pi/137) x 29 x tan(pi/(137x29))) / pi
which would give 1/alpha = 137.0359997866991075... The formula relates alpha to the length of the perimeter of a 137x29sided regular polygon inscribed in a circle of unit diameter.
This might not seem quite so amazing when you realize that there are many nifty formulas for any number. For example, my RIES program finds this formula in less than 20 seconds:
1/alpha ~= pi^{(e pi/2)} + sqrt(e^{3}1) = 137.0359997468028378...
There is a collection of fine structure constant theories here.
[rhinoceros] While we are at it, here is some more background material about the magic number 137.
Numerology
http://www.waves.brantacan.co.uk/numerology.htm
<snip>
The great scientist Sir Arthur Eddington "derived" the fine structure constant from an equation based on simple ideas. At the time the measured value was about 1/136. Eddington assumed that the denominator was a whole number. When the value was measured more accurately and found to be close to 1/137, Eddington had to change his theory. In fact the actual number is 1/137.03604. Nobody to this day knows the origin of this number, nor even whether it has meaning.
Arthur Eddington probably did not know the following fact. If you write Arthur Stanley Eddington, and if you set 1 for A, 2 for B, etc, the total of all the numbers from the letters is 274, which is 2 X 137. The 2 can be identified with the electron gyromagnetic ratio: 137 we have met already.
Had Eddington been aware of this, he might have reflected on the wisdom of believing something just because the numbers agree with something else. That his idea did not lead to anything does not detract from Eddington's great work in physics and astronomy: quite a few scientists have had sidelines which were not rated highly by other scientists.
<snip>
The Feynman Webring
http://home.att.net/~numericana/answer/feynman.htm
At this writing, the next site in this ring happens to feature an essay where James G. Gilson presents his own formula (involving two integer parameters) for the value of the socalled FineStructure Constant a = 0.007297352533(27) [whose reciprocal is 1/a = 137.035 999 76(50)]. This dimensionless fundamental constant of Nature was apparently first introduced in 1915 or 1916, by Arnold Sommerfeld (18681951).
Sommerfeld's FineStructure Constant may be viewed as the only free parameter in QED, the relativistic quantum theory of the interactions between electrons and photons (for which Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga shared the 1965 Nobel Prize). In QED, the coupling constant's effective limit is simply the square root of a, and Feynman was understandably annoyed that QED was thus based on an unexplained numerical value. He expressed the wish that a deeper understanding of Nature would eventually explain that value and/or allow it to be expressed in terms of known constants, like p or e.
Before and after Feynman, others have tried to guess such a relation, possibly hoping that it could be a clue to whatever more general theory may underly our current understanding of the laws of Nature. Around 1923, Sir Arthur Eddington (18821944) "proved" a to be 1/136, in agreement with early rough estimates. When subsequently faced with incompatible experimental data, he amended the "proof" to show that the value had to be 1/137, so that Punch magazine dubbed him Sir Arthur AddingOne. See 137 by Charles C. Mann, or look up the description by Robert Munafo of the socalled Eddington number [the outrageously asserted total number of electrons in the Universe, as the inverse of the fine structure constant multiplied by a power of two].
[rhinoceros] By the way, Sir Arthur Eddington had also asserted that the number of electrons in the Universe was 136 x 10^{256} (called Eddington's number), where 136 was... yes, you guessed right.
There is also this famous joke. Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, in his book Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and Motivations in Science, says he was told by Eddington himself:
[ ... ] as the joint meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society was dispersing [this was 6 November 1919, when the results of the eclipse expedition that confirmed Einstein's prediction of the bending of light by gravity were announced], Ludwig Silberstein came up to him and said, "Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity." On Eddington's demurring to this statement, Silberstein responded, "Don't be modest, Eddington," and Eddington replied that, "On the contrary, I am trying to think who the third person is."
A parody paper in solid state physics, published in 1931
http://www.math.tohoku.ac.jp/~kuroki/Sokal/misc/bethespoof.html
Context and implications
This paper, "Remarks on the quantum theory of the absolute zero of temperature," by G. Beck, H. Bethe, and W. Riezler, was published in 1931 in a wellknown physics journal as a legitimate research article. (Note: Hans Bethe would go on to do much fundamental research and win a Nobel Prize.) To anyone with a rudimentary modern physics background it is nonsensical, and screamingly funny as a parody of certain kinds of "numerology" which are popular with pseudoscientists and crackpots. (A nonphysicist may not see why it's funny; I have written an explanation, below.)
To its authors in 1931 it was presumably equally nonsensical on its face; solid state physics was less advanced in 1931, and undergoing some cataclysmic changes brought on by the quantum physics revolution. Nevertheless, there are enormous gaps in the logic which should have been obvious to physicists of that time.
The obvious inference, and relevance to the Alan SokalSocial Text affair, is of course that the publication of one parody does not prove the bankruptcy of the field  and that the language and methods of science are spoofable, as are the language and methods of critical theory.
Furthermore, this paper helps to remind us that satire should be committed in and taken with a sense of humor, something notably lacking from nearly everybody involved in the Sokal Affair.
Explanation of the parody
The paper parodies certain types of "numerology," notably that of Sir Arthur Eddington. Eddington was a famous and highly accomplished physicist, who toward the end of his career began to delve into poorlyfounded speculations. One of these involved the finestructure constant alpha, a number which arises in quantum physics. It is a pure number, without dimensions or units, and is equal to about 1/137.04. At Eddington's time, alpha was known less accurately and the experimental value was consistent with 1/137 exactly.
Eddington and others, attempting to figure out why alpha should be the value that it is, engaged in various handwaving efforts to justify the number 137 as derivable from some kind of fundamental principle. The spoof paper by Beck, Bethe, and Riezler makes a connection between 137 and the number 273; the absolute zero of temperature is at 273 degrees Celsius.
Of course, this must be nonsense, since alpha is independent of systems of units, while the number 273 for absolute zero applies only to Celsius degrees; in another system such as degrees Fahrenheit, absolute zero is at 459 degrees F. This is only the most obvious howler in the spoof paper, but it should have been enough for the journal editors to get it.
The spoof paper
The paper appeared originally in [/i]Die Naturwissenschaften[/i], (1931) vol. 2, pp.389. A translation appears in the book A Random Walk in Science, (1973) compiled by R.L. Weber, edited by E. Mendoza (Institue of Physics: London). I have taken the liberty of putting the text on the Web. The introductory remarks in brackets are from the book's editors.
(This is a famous spoof paper, accepted by the Editor of Die Naturwissenschaften in good faith, and published in 1931. It pokes fun at the mystical properties claimed by Eddington and others for the number 137.)
Remarks on the quantum theory of the absolute zero of temperature
by G. Beck, H. Bethe, and W. Riezler
Let us consider a hexagonal crystal lattice. The absolute zero temperature is characterized by the condition that all degrees of freedom are frozen. That means that all inner movements of the lattice cease. This of course does not hold for an electron on a Bohr orbital. According to Eddington, each electron has 1/alpha degrees of freedom, where alpha is the Sommerfeld fine structure constant. Beside the electrons, the crystal contains only protons for which the number of degrees of freedom is the same since, according to Dirac, the proton can be viewed as a hole in the electron gas. To obtain absolute zero temperature we therefore have to remove from the substance 2/alpha  1 degrees of freedom per neutron. (The crystal as a whole is supposed to be electrically neutral; 1 neutron = 1 electron + 1 proton. One degree of freedom remains because of the orbital movement.)
For the absolute zero temperature we therefore obtain
T0 = (2/alpha  1) degrees.
If we take T0 = 273 we obtain for 1/alpha the value of 137 which agrees within limits with the number obtained by an entirely different method. It can be shown easily that this result is independent of the choice of crystal structure.
Note: In the original, "alpha" is the Greek letter alpha, "T0" is T subscript zero.





