Dean,
This is all very interesting, but extremely simplistic in its argument and
therefore unconvincing in itself. These quotes are great, and add insight
into the approach of solving this very complex problem, but if there is any
merit in the soft particle theory, then why should we have to resort to
simplistic arguments to make points? If you are just preaching to the choir
here on this site then I can understand that there is no need for stronger
arguments and support. However, those who are just being introduced this
concept can immediately recognize the weakness of these statements. It
doesn't help to sway any "educated" visitors.
For example, the argument that a fired bullet that doesn't fall to earth as
quickly from the gravitational force as explained by conventional science as
compared to the bullet that is dropped, thus proving that the science of
aerodynamics is entirely false, is not only arrogant, but is ignoring other
basic laws of nature so blatantly that even a third grader can see the error
of this logic. It is obvious that centrifugal force is at play in this
comparison, yet, that factor is totally ignored.
If we are to present this theory as a valid alternative to the accepted
theories, and if we are to gain any consideration from those who are
indoctrinated with these other theories, then our arguments have to be much
more supported and logical than these oversimplifying arguments from the
"Your Grandma Wears Combat Boots" genre.
According to the logic of this argument, nothing would fall; airplanes would
not crash and home runs would be the norm. The speed obtained in the falling
would created the same particle imbalance and electrostatic repulsion that
causes flight. So, all things that fall would slow down as it is building up
this repulsion factor, deviate to the one direction of least resistance, and
then maintain a certain attitude of flight until the speed dissipates enough
allow for a gentle landing of a blissful balance between repulsion and
attraction.
Curve balls in baseball wouldn't exist, not to mention knuckle balls! Plus
myriad other examples that show this argument to be so oversimplistic that it
garners ridicule instead of respect. We have to do better! We have to stop
dismissing other scientific knowledge entirely for the sake of defending this
theory. It is so obvious that many forces are at play in this balance of our
intricate existence. It seems arguable that soft particle forces are at play
as well, but let's make our arguments more palatable to the educated mind
while we're at it.
If the merits of this theory cannot match up with the daily observations we
all make and deal with, if it cannot incorporate the truths and knowledge
that we've gained from whatever sources and sciences, if it cannot be
presented in a logical and convincing manner, and if it can only muster this
type of exclusionary thinking, then we are promoting a weaker concept than
those with which I wish to be associated.
This weakness is what draws the terms and labels of disdain, such as:
fanatical, extremist, ignorant, uneducated, tunnel-visioned, unscientific,
obsessed, and so on and so forth. (Any of these terms sound familiar?) This
concept deserves much more credibility than that of relying on these simple
argumentative statements that may be doing more damage than good in promoting
the concept and the cause.
Cater has introduced a wonderful concept, certainly worth investigating,
which might be the answer to many of the mysteries that still face us here
upon this earth. It may have a great application in explaining the
"scientific" contradictions to a Hollow Earth existence, but, let us all
remember, the overall concept and theory of soft particle physics is not an
all or nothing proposition. Soft particle physics is not just simply a
single all encompassing theory, it is many theories layered upon the
"unproven" concept of soft particles. Many of these layered theories are in
response to the questions that the initial theory raises. (Well, if this,
then what about this? To which another theory is postulated to satisfy that
question.) Many of these secondary theories may not be an accurate
estimation of what is actually taking place. If some of these secondary
theories are weak or inaccur!
ate then we shouldn't be diminishing the overall
value of the soft particle concept by forcing all the secondary theories to
be openly accepted as part of a package deal in accepting the theory of soft
particle physics. Not only that, but, inaccurate secondary theories tend to
generate third and fourth generation theories as well that may be tainted and
inaccurate.
Such would seem to be this argument of the nature of flight. Yes, perhaps
the repulsion concept is in effect, but perhaps it is only a partial force
that allows flight to take place. To state that because a plane can fly
upside down proves that the lift factor of aerodynamics is false, is
ignorantly overlooking the fact that a great many adjustments need to be made
in the controlling devices of that plane to accommodate for the lack of the
natural aerodynamics built into the plane for upside down flight to be
possible. It's these types of ignorant comments that turn off the insightful
investigator of the concept.
Let's stop insulting the logical, educated minds that we have appealed to on
this site with this lower standard of argumentative reasoning. If we can
raise the standards, we can raise the awareness and caliber of our
supporters, and this message can be taken seriously by those who will make a
difference. Thank you.
Norlan