Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Everything for the NRC

Expand Messages
  • milo wolff by way of cyrano@aqua.ocn.ne
    Dear QSC Explorers, May I send you the response of one member to my last message with my reply? I think this entry of the government into understanding the
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 23, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear QSC Explorers,

      May I send you the response of one member to my last message with my reply?
      I think this entry of the government into understanding the basis of science
      is very important so I hope you don't object to my filling your IN box.

      Milo

      Bill3/23/01 10:22 AM

      Hi Milo,
      I looked it over briefly- at least thru Chapter 2. When I showed your
      paper to several of the physics professors here, they expressed interest,
      but generally responded that it was difficult for one individual to oppose
      the large consensus of opinion and experimental evidence supporting the
      current status quo.

      Dear Bill,

      I read all the NRC report , which is tough to download as a .pdf file.

      The amazing feature is that, the NRC committee seeks a "fundamental
      theory of matter, space and time" at the very time it has already been
      accomplished. The Wave Structure of Matter is exactly that. The irony is
      that they do not know it yet. I hope that you could help.

      It is an amazing coincidence. Although proposals to connect the large scale
      universe with microphysics seriously began with Paul Dirac ( 1930) who
      noted the coincidence of LARGE NUMBER RATIOS of micro and astro constants,
      this is the first proposal to spend USA money $$$ doing it!. Or should we
      credit medieval astrology, paid by the kings, as the first?

      The NRC proposal looks like they want to add billions of $$$ to the NSF,
      NASA, and Energy budgets. Yup --Billions = $1,000,000,000 x N. The
      committee wants The USA to spend money directly on this knowledge. Of
      course, you probably know how committees behave when there is loose $$$
      around. Behind the reasons given, each member has his own budget and pocket
      in mind. This is sad.

      You are important! Those few of us who understand the WSM and how it
      produces the previously unknown natural laws, have a duty to humanity to see
      that the US government moves in the right direction. Only we can guide
      them. The voices of the QSC need to be heard. I plan to write + email the
      members of the Senate and House Science Committees. www.house.gov and
      www.senate.gov

      The value to future research in energy + computers + micro circuits +
      health, which are related to the structure of matter is immense. The beauty
      is that WSM work is cheap! No expensive accelerators needed - only ordinary
      labs and computers. There is so much easy fruit to pick at the beginning.

      Geoff Hazelhurst (Australia) and Daniel Lapadatu (U in Norway), and I have
      been analyzing the WSM further by email communication and it is now very
      clear that the accomplished unity of Space/time/matter has been simply
      reduced to just the properties of the Spherical Wave Resonance (SWR). So
      simple! No quadratic equations, only 5 variables to think about: h. c, m,
      t, and length. We can quickly see this spherical geometric structure
      underlies the intricate properties of the large scale universe. Beauty in
      truth.

      It is awe-inspiring to us that all of physics and cosmology depends on a
      single entity! That this is true is seen because the meaning of these three
      (matter, space, time) are directly tied to the SWR. They are also the basis
      of measurements used to find Nature's rules.

      This simplicity is further amplified because every EE, CE, ME, and science
      student knows that only three dimensions (mass, length, time) are needed to
      describe every type of measurement. The mystery of why this is so has never
      been explained. We have accepted it for 200 years. Now we see the answer -
      they are the basic properties of the SWR.

      Needless to say the SWR also yields Dirac's Large Number ratios. In fact
      there are darn few mysteries of science still to be explained. Even
      Einstein's General Theory of Relativity - thought to be very complicated -
      becomes simple to prove and understand because it too is part of the WSM.

      Soon we will be teaching physics in grade school!

      If I read the above from someone else, I would scratch my head and wonder:
      'Is this guy weird?' I hope you trust me enough to realize it is all real.
      No kidding. Scientists have been glibly saying that Nature always chooses
      the simplest path. Well, the WSM is the ultimate simple path. Perhaps the
      WSM itself is the reason for past observations of simplicity.

      A la Karl Popper (in Conjectures and Refutations
      <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415043182/qid=985369799/sr=1-3/ref=
      sc_b_4/103-5007998-3292661> ), the only way to accomplish such a feat is
      thru experimental evidence. One person can defeat a silly conjecture like
      inflation or misclasification of photons and "particles" by refutations!!
      Popper cautions us about the methods of irrefutable hypotheses! I wonder how
      we can test the big bang or inflation- When I looked at the data in our
      local cosmology course, "inflation" looked to my engineering eye like the
      hokiest shakiest extrapolation of all time (or should I say space-time:)!

      :-) .. Bill, you are absolutely right! I like your intuition which
      guides you so well. The BB is a con game sold to the public by those who
      believe they can never be caught in a lie. I would be remiss, if I did not
      add that the WSM has a simple explanation of the red shift they does not
      challenge credulity.

      I recall your listing of ten or so experiments which would verify your
      position at the end of yourbook. Have you considered an update review of
      those?

      Yes. In fact several of them are already found, but few people care. The
      notion of a wave structure as a particle is hard to believe if you have
      another model already fixed in your head. Asa you say, 'Slam Dunk!'

      Also I appreciate the political and funding constraints which complicate the
      ready achievement of such refutations- I have personally experienced the
      slam dunking which can occur when your perfect scientific/engineering
      refutation is contrary to the powerful interest or politically incorrect!

      You are so right, Bill. When I was at MIT, I had little trouble getting $6
      million grants for big ideas and little ones of $50,000. At Aerospace I got
      $200,000 and $50,000 grants. Even the UN wanted me to spend money! Now I
      am independent and ... well you know... I have to spend my own money.

      I am reminded of my favorite musical:

      To dream the impossible dream,
      To fight the unbeatable foe,
      To bear the unbearable sorrow,
      To run where the brave dare not go.
      This is my quest, to follow that star, ...(without inflation)?
      No matter how lonesome,
      No matter how far,
      To fight for the right,
      Without question or pause,
      To be willing to mach into hell for a heavenly cause............ I left the
      typo in there- freudian slip?

      I like your poem. I feel that way too. But it is getting to be a tougher
      hell now that I am 78 and arthritis insists on becoming the largest emotion
      of the day.

      The reference I sent in the last email was inverted in the title: Its
      correct title is visual quantum mechanics
      <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387989293/qid%3D985370181/103-50079
      98-3292661>
      That was buried in a response to your alert on postal service internet
      taxation etc.... Don't know if it got thru to you.
      Your friend,
      Bill

      Dear QSC Explorers,

      I am forwarding a recent important announcement of the Astrophysics Div of
      the APS. The stated purpose of the announcement is to request information
      and ideas or projects from the entire physics community - that is, from
      people like us. The purpose is to connect the small aspects of physics to
      the very large, (No mention that this is already done in the WSM.)

      Oddly, after asking the question, the committee which consists of most of
      the power folks in physics, proceeds to answer all their questions by
      themselves. They do this in a 95 page document
      http://www.nas.edu/bpa/reports/cpu/index.html, which is a very well written
      and beautifully illustrated (probably expensive of USA government $$$)
      series of arguments which makes it clear they do not want to change their
      minds. Any reasonable new ideas of physical reality will probably have a
      hostile reception. On the other hand, six dozen leading physicists and
      astronomers cannot all be blind - who knows?

      The basic assumptions which it supports are the big bang, discrete matter
      particles, quarks, the standard model, general relativity, black holes,
      strings, Higgs bosons, and other conventional wisdom. General Relativity is
      the interesting case which is also included in the Wave Structure of Matter
      (WSM).

      The conventional wisdom discussed is replete with speculation but delivered
      as though it were the word of God. There is no mention of Mach's Principle,
      Einstein's concept of space, the quantum nature of space and no suggestion
      that their own ideas, or submitted ideas and proposals, should be supported
      by the experimental observation of Nature.

      The document is well worth reading, since it provides a perspective of the
      politics, thinking and theories which must be overcome if there is ever
      going to be a broad recognition of the true WSM. It is very educational
      concerning current astrophysical and high energy physics research and
      conventional concepts.

      If you choose to read it, I would like to know your opinion.

      Thanks, Milo
      ----------
      From: dap@...
      Reply-To: dap@...
      Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:00:33 -0500
      To: milo.wolff@...
      Subject: APS Division of Astrophysics Announcements

      Message to members of the American Physical Society's
      Division of Astrophysics (DAP),authorized by
      Neil Gehrels,Secretary/Treasurer of DAP
      =========================================================
      Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Call for Community Input


      The NRC's Committee on the Physics of the Universe (CPU)
      was charged by DOE, NASA, and NSF with identifying science
      opportunities at the intersection of physics and astronomy and
      recommending strategies for realizing these science
      opportunities. The NRC has recently issued the Phase I CPU
      report: Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: 11 Science
      Questions for the New Century. The report is available on-line in
      its entirety at http://www.nas.edu/bpa/reports/cpu/index.html.


      The Committee believes that there are extraordinary
      opportunities for breakthroughs in our understanding of the
      Universe in which we live and the fundamental laws which
      govern it. We are beginning the critical second phase of our
      activity. The goal of Phase II is to identify strategies for realizing
      the 11 timely science opportunities. This will include making
      recommendations on how the agencies can most effectively
      cooperate and coordinate their programs in this area and
      identifying a set of projects that can realize the opportunities
      identified in the Phase I report.

      The CPU needs and seeks input from the broad community
      of astronomers and physicists on agency cooperation/
      coordination issues and projects to realize the opportunities
      before us. We also welcome advice on any other aspect of
      implementing the Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos science.
      Comments should be sent to q2c@....

      Michael S. Turner, The University of Chicago, Chair
      Roger D. Blandford, California Institute of Technology
      Sandra M. Faber, University of California at Santa Cruz
      Thomas K. Gaisser, University of Delaware
      Fiona Harrison, California Institute of Technology
      John P. Huchra, Harvard University
      Helen R. Quinn, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
      R. G. Hamish Robertson, University of Washington
      Bernard Sadoulet, University of California at Berkeley
      Frank J. Sciulli, Columbia University
      David N. Spergel, Princeton University
      J. Anthony Tyson, Lucent Technologies
      Frank A. Wilczek, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
      Clifford Will, Washington University, St. Louis
      Bruce D. Winstein, The University of Chicago




      <HTML>
      <HEAD>
      <TITLE>Everything for the NRC</TITLE>
      </HEAD>
      <BODY>
      Dear QSC Explorers,<BR>
      <BR>
      May I send you the response of one member to my last message with my reply?
      I think this entry of the government into understanding the basis of science
      is very important so I hope you don't object to my filling your IN box.<BR>
      <BR>
      Milo<BR>
      <BR>
      Bill3/23/01 10:22 AM<BR>
      <BR>
      <BLOCKQUOTE><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT FACE="Arial">Hi Milo,<BR>
       I looked it over briefly- at least thru Chapter 2.  When I
      showed your paper to several of the physics professors here, they expressed
      interest, but generally responded that it was difficult for one individual
      to oppose the large consensus of opinion and experimental evidence
      supporting the current status quo. <BR>
      </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT COLOR="#800000"><BR>
      Dear Bill,   <BR>
      <BR>
      I read all the NRC report , which is tough to download as a .pdf file.<BR>
      <BR>
          The amazing feature is that, the NRC committee
      seeks a "<U>fundamental theory of matter, space and time</U>" at
      the very time it has already been accomplished.  The<U> Wave Structure
      of Matter</U> is exactly that.  The irony is that they do not know
       it yet.  I hope that you could help.  <BR>
      <BR>
      It is an amazing coincidence. Although proposals to connect the large scale
      universe with microphysics seriously began with Paul Dirac ( 1930)  who
      noted the coincidence of LARGE NUMBER RATIOS of micro and astro constants,
      this is the first proposal to spend USA money $$$ doing it!. Or should we
      credit medieval astrology, paid by the kings, as the first?<BR>
      <BR>
      The NRC proposal looks like they want to add billions of $$$ to the NSF,
      NASA, and Energy budgets.  Yup --Billions =  $1,000,000,000 x N.
      The committee wants The USA to spend  money directly on this knowledge.
      Of course, you probably know how committees behave when there is loose $$$
      around.  Behind the reasons given, each member has his <U>own</U>
      budget and pocket in mind.  This is sad.<BR>
      <BR>
      You are important!  Those few of us who understand the WSM and how it
      produces the previously unknown natural laws, have a duty to humanity to see
      that the US government moves in the right direction.  Only we can guide
      them.  The voices of the QSC need to be heard.  I plan to write +
      email  the members of the Senate and House Science
      Committees.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"> www.house.gov </FONT><FONT
      COLOR="#800000">and</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000080"> www.senate.gov<BR>
      </FONT><FONT COLOR="#800000"><BR>
      The value to future research in energy + computers + micro circuits +
      health, which are related to the structure of matter is immense. The beauty
      is that WSM work is cheap!  No expensive accelerators needed - only
      ordinary labs and computers.  There is so much easy fruit to pick at
      the beginning.<BR>
      <BR>
      Geoff Hazelhurst (Australia)  and Daniel Lapadatu (U in Norway), and I
      have been analyzing the WSM further by email communication and it is now
      very clear that the accomplished unity of Space/time/matter has been simply
      reduced to just the properties of the Spherical Wave Resonance (SWR). So
      simple!  No quadratic equations, only 5 variables to think about:
       h. c, m, t, and length.  We can quickly see this spherical
      geometric structure underlies the intricate properties of the large scale
      universe.  Beauty in truth.<BR>
      <BR>
      It is awe-inspiring to us that all of physics and cosmology depends on a
      single entity!  That this is true is seen because the meaning of these
      three (matter, space, time) are directly tied to the SWR.  They are
      also the basis of measurements  used to find Nature's rules.<BR>
      <BR>
      This simplicity  is further amplified because every EE, CE, ME, and
      science student knows that only three dimensions (mass, length, time) are
      needed to describe every type of measurement.  The mystery of why this
      is so has never been explained. We have accepted it for 200 years. Now we
      see the answer  - they are the basic properties of the SWR.<BR>
      <BR>
      Needless to say the SWR also yields Dirac's Large Number ratios.  In
      fact there are darn few mysteries of science still to be explained.
       Even Einstein's General Theory of Relativity - thought to be very
      complicated - becomes simple to prove and understand because it too is part
      of the WSM. <BR>
      <BR>
      Soon we will be teaching physics in grade school!<BR>
      <BR>
      If I read the above from someone else, I would scratch my head and wonder:
      'Is this guy weird?' I hope you trust me enough to realize it is all real.
      No kidding.  Scientists have been glibly saying that Nature always
      chooses the simplest path. Well, the WSM is the ultimate simple
      path.</FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"> </FONT><FONT COLOR="#800000"> Perhaps the
      WSM itself is the reason for past observations of simplicity.<BR>
      </FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><BR>
      A la Karl Popper (in Conjectures and Refutations
      <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415043182/qid=985369799/sr=1-3/r
      ef=sc_b_4/103-5007998-3292661> ), the only way to accomplish such a feat
      is thru experimental evidence. <U>One person</U> can defeat a silly
      conjecture like <U>inflation</U> or <U>misclasification of photons</U> and
      "particles" by refutations!! Popper cautions us about the methods
      of irrefutable hypotheses! I wonder how we can test the big bang or
      inflation- When I looked at the data in our local cosmology course,
      "inflation" looked to my engineering eye like the hokiest shakiest
      extrapolation of all time (or should I say space-time:)!<BR>
      <BR>
      </FONT><FONT COLOR="#800000"> :-)  ..  Bill, you are absolutely
      right!  I like your intuition which guides you so well. The BB is a con
      game sold to the public by those who believe they can never be caught in a
      lie.  I would be remiss, if I did not add that  the WSM has a
      simple explanation of the red shift they does not challenge credulity.<BR>
      </FONT></FONT><BR>
      <FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT FACE="Arial">   I recall your listing
      of ten or so experiments which would verify your position at the end of
      yourbook. Have you considered an update review of those? <BR>
      <BR>
      </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT COLOR="#800000">Yes. In fact several
      of them are already found, but few people care. The notion of a wave
      structure as a particle is hard to believe if you have another model already
      fixed in your head. Asa you say,  'Slam Dunk!'<BR>
      </FONT><FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><BR>
      Also I appreciate the political and funding constraints which complicate the
      ready achievement of such refutations- I have personally experienced the
      slam dunking which can occur when your perfect scientific/engineering
      refutation is contrary to the powerful interest or <U>politically
      incorrect</U>! <BR>
      <BR>
      </FONT><FONT COLOR="#800000">You are so right,  Bill. When I was at
      MIT, I had little trouble getting $6 million grants for  big ideas and
      little ones of $50,000. At Aerospace I got $200,000 and $50,000 grants.
       Even the UN wanted me to spend money!  Now I am independent and
      ... well you know...   I have to spend my own<B> money.<BR>
      </B></FONT></FONT><BR>
      <FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT FACE="Arial">I am reminded of my favorite
      musical: <BR>
      </FONT></FONT> <BR>
      <FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT FACE="Arial">To dream the impossible dream,<BR>
      To fight the unbeatable foe,<BR>
      To bear the unbearable sorrow,<BR>
      To run where the brave dare not go.<BR>
      This is my quest, to follow that star,    ...(without
      inflation)?<BR>
      No matter how lonesome,<BR>
      No matter how far,<BR>
      To fight for the right,<BR>
      Without question or pause,<BR>
      To be willing to mach into hell for a heavenly cause............  I
      left the typo in there- freudian slip?<BR>
      <BR>
      </FONT></FONT><FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>I like your poem.
       I feel that way too.  But it is getting to be a tougher hell now
      that I am 78 and arthritis insists on becoming the largest emotion of the
      day.<BR>
      </B></FONT></FONT> <BR>
      <FONT COLOR="#0000FF"><FONT FACE="Arial">  The reference I sent in the
      last email was inverted in the title: Its correct title is visual quantum
      mechanics
      <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387989293/qid%3D985370181/103-50
      07998-3292661> <BR>
      That was buried in a response to your alert on postal service internet
      taxation etc.... Don't know if it got thru to you.<BR>
      Your friend,<BR>
      <FONT SIZE="2">Bill<BR>
      </FONT></FONT></FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT SIZE="2"><BR>
      </FONT><FONT COLOR="#800000">Dear QSC Explorers,<BR>
      <BR>
      I am forwarding a recent important announcement of the Astrophysics Div of
      the APS. The stated purpose of the announcement is to request information
      and ideas or projects  from the entire physics community - that is,
      from people like us.  The purpose is to connect the small aspects of
      physics to the very large, (No mention that this is already done in the
      WSM.)<BR>
      <BR>
      Oddly, after asking the question, the committee which consists of most of
      the power folks in physics, proceeds to answer all their questions by
      themselves.  They do this in a 95 page document </FONT><FONT
      COLOR="#000080">http://www.nas.edu/bpa/reports/cpu/index.html</FONT><FONT
      COLOR="#800000">, which is a very well written and beautifully illustrated
      (probably expensive of USA government $$$) series of arguments which makes
      it clear they do not want to change their minds. Any reasonable new ideas of
      physical reality will probably have a hostile reception.  On the other
      hand, six dozen leading physicists and astronomers cannot all be blind - who
      knows?<BR>
      <BR>
      The basic assumptions which it supports are the big bang, discrete matter
      particles, quarks, the standard model, general relativity, black holes,
      strings, Higgs bosons, and other conventional wisdom. General Relativity is
      the interesting case which is also included in the Wave Structure of Matter
      (WSM).<BR>
      <BR>
      The conventional wisdom discussed is replete with speculation but delivered
      as though it were the word of God.  There is no mention of Mach's
      Principle, Einstein's concept of space, the quantum nature of space and no
      suggestion that their own ideas, or submitted ideas and proposals, should be
      supported by the experimental observation of Nature.<BR>
      <BR>
      The document is well worth reading, since it provides a perspective of the
      politics, thinking and theories which must be overcome if there is ever
      going to be a broad recognition of the true WSM.  It is very
      educational concerning current astrophysical and high energy physics
      research and conventional concepts.<BR>
      <BR>
      If you choose to read it, I would like to know your opinion.<BR>
      <BR>
      Thanks, Milo<BR>
      </FONT>----------<BR>
      From: dap@...<BR>
      Reply-To: dap@...<BR>
      Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:00:33 -0500<BR>
      To: milo.wolff@...<BR>
      Subject: APS Division of Astrophysics Announcements<BR>
      <BR>
      Message to members of the American Physical Society's<BR>
      Division of Astrophysics (DAP),authorized by <BR>
      Neil Gehrels,Secretary/Treasurer of DAP<BR>
      =========================================================<BR>
      Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos:  Call for Community Input<BR>
      <BR>
      <BR>
      The NRC's Committee on the Physics of the Universe (CPU)<BR>
      was charged by DOE, NASA, and NSF with identifying science<BR>
      opportunities at the intersection of physics and astronomy and<BR>
      recommending strategies for realizing these science<BR>
      opportunities.  The NRC has recently issued the Phase I CPU<BR>
      report:  Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos:  11 Science<BR>
      Questions for the New Century.  The report is available on-line in<BR>
      its entirety at http://www.nas.edu/bpa/reports/cpu/index.html.<BR>
      <BR>
      <BR>
      The Committee believes that there are extraordinary<BR>
      opportunities for breakthroughs in our understanding of the<BR>
      Universe in which we live and the fundamental laws which<BR>
      govern it.  We are beginning the critical second phase of our<BR>
      activity.  The goal of Phase II is to identify strategies for realizing<BR>
      the 11 timely science opportunities.  This will include making<BR>
      recommendations on how the agencies can most effectively<BR>
      cooperate and coordinate their programs in this area and<BR>
      identifying a set of projects that can realize the opportunities<BR>
      identified in the Phase I report.<BR>
      <BR>
      The CPU needs and seeks input from the broad community<BR>
      of astronomers and physicists on agency cooperation/<BR>
      coordination issues and projects to realize the opportunities<BR>
      before us.  We also welcome advice on any other aspect of<BR>
      implementing the Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos science.<BR>
      Comments should be sent to q2c@....<BR>
      <BR>
      Michael S. Turner, The University of Chicago, Chair<BR>
      Roger D. Blandford, California Institute of Technology<BR>
      Sandra M. Faber, University of California at Santa Cruz<BR>
      Thomas K. Gaisser, University of Delaware<BR>
      Fiona Harrison, California Institute of Technology<BR>
      John P. Huchra, Harvard University<BR>
      Helen R. Quinn, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center<BR>
      R. G. Hamish Robertson, University of Washington<BR>
      Bernard Sadoulet, University of California at Berkeley<BR>
      Frank J. Sciulli, Columbia University<BR>
      David N. Spergel, Princeton University<BR>
      J. Anthony Tyson, Lucent Technologies<BR>
      Frank A. Wilczek, Massachusetts Institute of Technology<BR>
      Clifford Will, Washington University, St. Louis<BR>
      Bruce D. Winstein, The University of Chicago<BR>
      <BR>
      </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
      </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
      </BODY>
      </HTML>
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.