> confrontation
THE TRAP DOOR
By Earl L. Crockett
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward
In humankind's last noble effort to shift into a new cosmology of being,
circa the late 1600's, thinking, as consciousness, was deemed "unreal". We
are still suffering today from this denial of the one true distinction of
"being human" we have. As will be revealed below, and in the papers to
follow, this has relegated our species to identifying ourselves as physical
bodies (human) without full credit and acceptance being given to our ability
to think ourselves into existence (being). Before anyone jumps to
conclusions, this is a scientific assertion that will be proven out as we
progress.
Part I
I have been a student of the inner workings, and development, of the
cosmological principles of quantum physics for many years. Little has been
published on this subject. It is, however, consistent with the open
discourse engaged in by Bohr, Hiesenberg, Dirac, Pauli, Shrodinger,
Einstein, and many others prior to it's sudden halt; precipitated by the
beginning oppressions of W.W.II, circa 1936. It is from this vantage point,
or place of observation, that I have viewed the questions surrounding the
origins and nature of C/1995 01 Hale-Bopp. This process can be termed
"meta-thinking" or "thinking about thinking"; or rigorously spoken, as an
ontological inquiry.
I am intimately familiar with the cosmological distinctions that were
required to transition from the paradigm of "Faith" of Galileo's time to the
beginnings of the Scientific Method; ushered in so grandly by Newton's
"Principa" in 1692. I have also examined closely the Golden Rule of reality
or "realness" of our Scientific Age:
"Objective, Independent, Verifiable, Existence"
We have prospered, in the technological sense, from the application of this
Golden Rule for the last 300 years. My, and other's, communications with the
official astronomy community over the past several months regarding
Hale-Bopp has led me to conclude that this once useful and productive
Scientific Method, as applied to Astronomy, has geriatrified into a dogma
that is as solid as that in existence in the Middle Ages; and dogma is dogma
regardless of the paradigmatically origin.
The Blind Rabbit Farmer
-----------------------
Once upon a time, long long ago, there was a blind rabbit farmer who
detected a new creature in his barnyard. For many years the blind rabbit
farmer had steadfastly maintained that all that could possibly occupy his
barnyard were rabbits. So he set about correlating this new creature to his
existing model. Happily he had achieved nearly a 60 percent correlation;
mammal, four legs, nose, tail, hair, eyes, internal organs, genetics, etc.
So he proudly pronounced to the world that the new creature is a rabbit, but
something tells him that it's size/mass is in the range of 3 to 5 times
larger than his existing rabbits. The one thing that he can't resolve is the
actual size/mass, but he has skillfully extrapolated his model for rabbit on
to the new creature, and is firmly defending his estimate. It appears,
however, that new information is starting to come in that now has the farmer
proclaiming, "We believe that this is the first determination, ever, of
six-foot-long-ivory-tusks on a rabbit." The farmer's neighbor Mr. Hubble has
sight, and can see, but he's not talking.
What is presently not understood is that "Objective, Independent,
Verifiable, Existence" ( the 'Scientific Method') has a built in trap door
through which one can fall. For all of it's often quoted superiority to
matters of faith and/or spirit (or the quantum), one only has to look to a
reigning scientific principle of the 19th Century, the "Luminiferous Ether"
to know that this "trap door" does exist. The trip wire to this devious
device can be found in the "Webster's Dictionary" definition of "Objective"
which includes: "...(1): existing only in relation to a knowing subject or
willing agent (2): existing independent of the mind..." What this means in
the simplest of terms is that we can not decide "truth" or reality by
ourselves with our own minds, and individual experiments, if we adhere to
the Golden Rule of the Scientific Method; we must enlist knowing subjects
(as opposed to the object in view) and/or willing agents. If the "objects"
in question happen to be as out of view as the quantum entities were to 19th
Century science then what would otherwise, and later, be called wild
speculation has a way of presencing itself as "reality". This "reality" then
begins to take on a life of it's own as degrees and honors are given out,
and denied, on the basis of one's facility with this now "accepted" truth.
To the best of my observations this is the official state of the Science of
Astronomy in 1997. And, this does not mean that there are not many of those
in the field that are following what I would term a "quantum path of
thinking". It does mean that those handing out the degrees, and the money,
have little, or no, tolerance for other than that agreed to by their
"knowing subjects and willing agents" in power; what we would identify in
Galileo's times as being "The keepers of the Faith."
There is solid precedence for rethinking scientific theory when the
'accepted' model no longer fits the evidence. For example: Classical
Newtonian physics predicted that a 'black body' object, like a piece of
iron, should be light blue in color. We believe that the evidence
surrounding the impact of SL/9 and many of the reported Hale-Bopp
'anomalies' have now made the 'dirty snowball' comet model as strange, and
unacceptable, as 'light blue iron' was to 1900 century science.
It is very difficult, however, for those who 'know' to consider new
theories. This is the dilemma that faced Max Planck when he solved the black
body 'problem' with his Constant of Energy (circa early 1900's). Later he
felt compelled to say " I am by nature a mild and conservative man. The
problem before me was so complex, however, that I had to give up everything
I knew to be true in order to derive my solution." Max Planck's discovery
opened up the whole world of the quanta, named the science quantum, and
gained dear "mild and conservative by nature" Max Planck immortality. It
also gave us the sum total of what we call modern technology. We are
asserting that a similar breakthrough in the science of astronomy awaits
those willing to consider a possibility outside of the 'dirty snowball'
model.
Realness is determined in the Scientific Method Cosmology by the subject,
us, observing the object, rock, in a state of separate and apartness. We
then bring in our "knowing and willing agents" who verify "rock" as reality.
In the quantum things work much differently. The rock (quantum entity), the
measuring apparatus, and us exist in a wholeness or unseperateness; as in
"we're all in this together". Within this wholeness, the data is recorded,
but prior to that time we are required to think differently about what is to
ensue. Hiesenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and Bohr's Complementary
Principle, which were mathematically derived, require us to proscribe no
"Is-ness" to the events about to unfold. All we can say is that a
possibility, as in potentia, exists, and nothing else. John Wheeler
describes this required state as similar to looking at a dragon, but all we
can see is the head, and tail. What "is" in the middle of the dragon is
forever beyond our view. It is within this "forever unknown" region that all
of our modern technology has been derived.
What I am suggesting is that quantum thinking, the considering of
possibility as potentia, may be a useful tool for those needing to think
their way out of the dirty snowball mind set into the 'True Origin and
Nature of Comets'; such as that predicted by James McCanney's 'Plasma
Discharge Comet Model'.
End Part I
------------------------------------------------------------------------
copyright 1997/98 The Millennium Group
COSMOLOGY THE REPOSITORY
> TOP