Dean and Others,
I hope my last post wasn't totally misinterpreted.
It was not an attack on Cater. It was a call for a higher standard of
intellectual support for Cater.
It was not an attack on you Dean. I think you are a fantastic organizer and
collector and administrator of ideas.
I think Cater is a brilliant thinker and that he has expressed and theorized
a very exciting concept that needs to be developed. He appears to be a
brilliant physicist or mathematician, but I'm only pointing out that his
strong suit is not logical argument.
Let me ask this: With Cater's age, and apparent state of mind, who is going
to pick up where he left off? He may not be with us much longer. Who is
going to answer the questions that arise in our supportive discussions which
we ourselves keep posing to him, after he is gone?
Does anyone on this list who is reading this post have the education and the
background to be able to carry on the work which Cater has introduced? I
don't. I don't think that you do, or Frode, or anyone else we've heard from
on this list. I don't think there's a single one of us who has the ability
to pick up and expand on Cater's theories, we can only react to them, respond
to them, and discuss them.
Is this theory going to die when Cater does?
Or, is this theory strong enough to excite other physicist type intellects to
pick up the cause and develop the concept further? Is there someone who will
be able to answer these questions which continue to arise, after Cater is
gone?
Did Franklin's discovery of electricity end there? No. Someone picked up on
it and developed it into practical applications.
Did Edison's inventions and appications end with his death? No. Others have
taken the field of electronics to heights which Edison never even imagined
posible.
Who is going to develop Cater's discoveries? Who is the intellect, or the
"Others" who will pick up on this concept and develop it to its full
potential?
What are the practical applications of orgone energy that are yet to be
developed?
Or have they already been developed and we only observe them as UFO's.
I have only played the Devil's Advocate here. I am not attacking Cater's
ideas. I am only rallying those who wish to defend him, including myself, to
raise our standards of support from that of awestruck admiration and
unflinching loyalty, to that of serious logical support that will convince
"other" physicists to give this theory a serious look.
If not, then this theory will die with Cater, along with the hero of our
admiration. What better tribute can we make than to see to it that his work
does not die in its infancy.
Or instead, we can go around patting ourselves on the back for being so
brilliant and intuitive for being among the few who recognize the value of
Cater's work. We can keep coming up with little tidbits which tend to
support our beliefs on the surface and thus feed our egos, or we can,
perhaps, discuss the issues which arise from these discoveries in a mature
scientific manor to help do our part in working out the details.
I guess that depends on the purpose of this site.
When I refered to the labels list, fanatics & etc., I was not calling you
names, Dean, or Cater, but, I was refering to the names I've been called by
others for believing in these type of things, i.e., Orgone Energy, Soft
Paticles, Hollow Earth Theory, UFO's, and so forth and so on. But that's my
nature, I guess. I tend to doubt things that don't make logical sense and I
am drawn to things that do seem to make logical sense.
So, forgive me when I flare up against illogical arguments that are weak and
unsupportive of the things in which I believe.
As far as being hard on Cater? I'm sure my observations were mild compared
to someone who thinks he's a crackpot. If he and the theory cannot withstand
friendly fire, which were merely observations of illogical arguments, then
how is it going to withstand an all out attack. This theory is the aggresor.
It challenges the establishment. It threatens lifelongs of dedication and
loyalties. If it becomes too threatening then forces will oppose it with an
all out barrage. If we, as supporters, don't have the amunition to defend
it, then the theory will be blown out of the water.
Dean, surely you don't dismiss aerodynamics entirely. Have you ever stuck
you hand out of a car window while driving down the road? When your hand is
flat there is little resistance. When you tilt your hand up the resistance
lifts your whole arm. When you tilt your hand down the resistance forces
your arm down. The lift in your arm is porportionate to the speed of the car
and the resistance to the density of the air, it is not electrostatic
repulsion. Cater indicated that aerodynamics played no part in the phenomena
of flight, I merely suggest that it has at least a little something to do
with it.
Let's not prove to be fanatical. That is what the "opposition" feeds on.
Let's discuss the issues in a mature, logical manor, and derive our
conclusions from those logical discussions. That way, "Others" won't have
room to easily oppose the concepts, but rather, will have food for thought to
be intrigued, and therefore converted easier.
Your friend and humble observer,
Norlan
