DEFINITIONS? or Non-definitions?
How PRECISE is orthodox Science?
Dean, Jan, Hazel, Leslee, Scott, Gerry, MachoArm, Ralph, Mike, and everyone else!...
This isn't pro or con about whether the earth is hollow or not, but connected. We all rely on SCIENCE FACTS to support our viewpoints about science in general. How reliable are some of those "facts?" If many accepted standard scientific DEFINITIONS are as IMPRECISE and often "circular" as I find them, maybe some of those "facts" are not reliable.
DAVID PRATT observantly pointed out that geologists and other scientists have NO real proof of what exists inside earth's crust for more than a few miles from the surface. Pratt said they make ASSUMPTIONS only, beyond that depth. And so it is about our Sun and distant Stars. Scientists have not been able to penetrate below the apparent surface of our Sun (or other Stars). Mostly on the basis of their beliefs concerning the apparent colors and luminosity of distant bodies, scientists have made many, agreed upon ASSUMPTIONS about the Sun, Stars and now, the subtle composition of space itself, which may - or may not - be true.
I don't pretend to be another David Pratt, expertly analyzing orthodox scientific beliefs, but I do have pet peeves about orthodox scientific DEFINITIONS. If you're interested, please read on. You may have similar peeves. - Dick Fojut
ENERGY.
A famous theoretical physicist, Michio Kaku, tosses the word "ENERGY" out in practically every breath; "With ENOUGH energy we can do anything." He's not alone. The word "ENERGY" is used to explain phenomena by just about every scientist.
ENERGY. Just what is it?
Usually written in Physics as a tangible "something," a physical reality (an Element? a Particle?) the word "energy" remains largely UNDEFINED in Jastrow & Thompson's "Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers," a leading textbook.
WHAT is released when "ENERGY" is released?
When "energy is released," WHAT TANGIBLE SOMETHING is released?...
Work?" - "Motion?" - "Activity?" - "Action?" - "Solar WIND?" or "Light," - "Neutrinos" - "Electrons" - "Photons" - "Protons" - "Particles?", etc.
In my opinion, PRECISE explanations are poorly presented by the distinguished authors, Jastrow and Thompson. A mysterious "something" called ENERGY is often described as being "released. "
--------------------------------
ENERGY defined. The Winston dictionary definition for "energy" is "The result or effect of activity. (Physics): The capacity for doing mechanical work. The principal type being those due to motion and position."
--------------------------------
All definitions I can find, including detailed ones in the Britannica, define and describe "ENERGY" as NOT a solid "thing." Energy is described and defined as observed ACTIONS, REACTIONS or continuing MOVEMENT - such as a tightly wound metal spring releases "energy" by unwinding. The ACTION of unwinding is "releasing energy," though in reality, nothing tangible seems released except the unwinding of the spring. Energy is also explained as a "FORCE" in action. Keep that word "FORCE" in mind as well.
Please read through the following ORTHODOX definitions listed in bold quotes (sometimes "circular," contradictory, vague, some with interchangeable labels), with my comments in lighter body type. Here we go...
DEFINITIONS
from the textbook "Astronomy: Fundamentals and Frontiers"...
MAIN SEQUENCE STAR: "A star that is BURNING HYDROGEN in its core in a stable manner."
HYDROGEN BURNING: "The fusion of hydrogen to produce helium with the release of ENERGY."
(About the definitions above: perhaps FUSION will create Helium from Hyrdrogen - but "burning?" Burning is an earthly ATMOSPHERIC phenomena when volumes of OXYGEN are added to other elements or gases raised in temperature by a super volume of HEAT FORCE to bring about COMBUSTION. Combustion causes an ANALYSIS (a separation) of individual elements into their elementary gaseous states, temporarily appearing to our vision as hot "flames." (chemical separation through acids may not produce flames).
What is the ENERGY "released" in EARTHLY atmospheric combustion? It is the large volume of concentrated heat force temporarily FELT in the very hot gases within the atmosphere around the combustion. The atmosphere gets HOT!
But what is the "ENERGY" presumed to be released from "fusing" Hydrogen while "making" Helium in a star?? Also Heat? Or what? Read on.)
PHOTON: "Electromagnetic ENERGY in its particle form."
QUANTUM (OF LIGHT): "Electromagnetic ENERGY in its particle form. Same as Photon."
(Are Photons and "quantum of light" SOME of what is "released" from fusing Hydrogen? My added question: Does Electromagnetic ENERGY also have a NON-particle form, as suggested above? What is that NON-particle "form?" So far it's UNdefined. Please read on. )
LIGHT: "Same as electromagnetic RADIATION. Usually light means the VISIBLE portion of the electromagnetic spectrum."
(Electromagnetic ENERGY in its particle form is RADIATED outward and called "light.".)
VISIBLE LIGHT: "Electromagnetic RADIATION to which the eye is sensitive."
LUMINOSITY: "The total amount of ENERGY emitted by an astronomical object in one second."
(The "substance" "ENERGY" seems to BE radiation AND luminosity AND visible light. AND Photons, doesn't it? Also Particles, or matter.)
ABSOLUTE LUMINOSITY: "This indicates the amount of ENERGY flowing out of an object per unit time."
(What a useful word "ENERGY." The preceding definitions instruct us that ENERGY is ELECTROMAGNETIC and LUMINOSITY and LIGHT and a PARTICLE - and it is also RADIATION of particles. In this above definition, apparently a LOT of "energy" is moving outward in a short period of time.)
ANTIMATTER: "The complement to ordinary matter. The charge of an antimatter PARTICLE is the opposite of its matter compliment. Matter and antimatter may, on collision, ANNIHILATE EACH OTHER, leaving only ENERGY."
("Leaving only Energy?" But if energy IS light, luminosity, radiation, etc. AND particles or matter, wouldn't the Particle "ENERGY" also be annihilated in the collision? No? Amazing non-substance/substance, this surviving word "ENERGY.")
PRIMORDIAL FIREBALL RADIATION: "RADIATION filling the Universe at the time of the Big Bang."
(Luminosity, light, visible and invisible, electromagnetic "ENERGY," elemental particles, etc. - which are all also RADIATION - seem to have burst forth from a teensy point and filled the Universe if Professor Kaku and his like thinking friends are correct.)
ELEMENT: "The specification of the type of atom, based on the number of PROTONS in the nucleus."
PROTON: "A charged PARTICLE found in the nucleus of an atom."
ELECTRON: "A small negatively charged PARTICLE that may be found in orbit around the nucleus of an atom."
NEUTRON: "An electrically neutral PARTICLE with the same mass as the PROTON."
NUCLEUS (Atomic): "The central region of an atom, usually containing PROTONS and NEUTRONS in nearly equal numbers."
(Note that all the above are described as PARTICLES, which are elements or parts of MATTER. That NON-particle form of "ENERGY" is not mentioned. The mysterious NON-particle "form" of ENERGY remains a mystery to orthodoxy.)
SOLAR WIND: "The outward flow of PARTICLES (electrons, protons, etc.) from the sun."
(In other words, the Sun's RAYS, its RADIATION, are composed of electrons, protons, etc.
Question: Do the "electrons, protons etc.," PARTICLES from the Sun include electro-magnetic "ENERGY," luminosity, light, and radiation, which are ALSO defined above as PARTICLES?
Note how some definitions in all of the preceding have become "circular." Words are defined with words.
As Korzybski in "General Semantics" complained, people often mistake "words" as THINGS. Labels, words become "reality," not just SYMBOLS of the ACTUAL REALITIES behind the words. Scientists are just as prone to think this way as the rest of us ordinary souls. Imprecisely defined, "ENERGY" is one of those words that seems to have become a "reality' in itself to many in science, even when the word they are using may represent absolutely NOTHING.)
Before going on....
-----------------------------
ELECTRICITY defined. The Winston dictionary definition for "electricity" is "an imponderable and invisible agency, capable under different circumstances of producing light, heat, chemical decomposition, and other physical phenomena."
-----------------------------
FORCE defined. The Winston dictionary definition for "force" is "Phys., that which tends to produce motion, in a body."
(The above is similar to the DEFINITION of "FORCE" by James Churchward. See end of this email for Churchward's definition.
In the Winston dictionary, some synonyms for FORCE are also "active power, vigor, strength, ENERGY." That magical word Energy again!)
-----------------------------
ELECTRICAL FORCE: "A FORCE between two electrically charged objects."
(From above, "Force" is also sometimes used as a synonym for "Energy."
Is "electrical force" a MAGNETIC, pulling force? Or a REPELLANT force? or Both?)
ELECTRICAL FIELD: "A region of space in which the electrical FORCE may be detected."
(This is puzzling. WHAT creates that electrical force - or "energy" - in a "region" of space?)
ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE: "A FORCE originating from electrical charge, current (electrical charge IN MOTION), or a magnetized body. (a Magnetic FORCE.)
(What is the "FORCE" emanating from "electrical charge?" Like the word "energy" this word "force" seems unexplained)
MAGNETIC FIELD: "A magnetic FORCE pervading a region of space."
(Again my question: WHAT causes that "region of space" to be "pervaded?"
Is it a PULLING force? Gravity in space, without the presence of a Newtonian MASS?)
GALAXY: "A collection of stars (and often gas and dust) held together by MUTUAL GRAVITATION."
(MUTUAL gravity? Following the standard definition of Newton's Law below?)
GRAVITY: "The attraction of one MASS to another, one of the basic FORCES of the physical universe."
(Gravity is usually explained that the BIGGER mass attracts the smaller mass. One problem with Newton's "LAW" for masses, mentioned by Churchward; If the apple tree is on the SIDE of the hill, when the apple falls, it should STAY put against the hill's side - against the BIGGER mass. Right? But it doesn't! It continues to roll to the bottom of the hill, attempting to reach earth's central magnet, beyond 50 miles deep. The apple's roll is stopped by the intervening density of the rocky crust. The apple stops there, which is as close as it can get to earth's central magnet.
The preceding example suggests that orthodoxy may be partly mistaken that big ELEMENTAL masses in space attract small ELEMENTAL masses. INSTEAD, it may be unseen electromagnetic FORCES generated by revolving bodies that attract each other, not elements attracting elements. Not Masses attracting masses.)
STAR: "A gaseous sphere HELD TOGETHER BY ITS OWN GRAVITY, especially one MASSIVE enough to provide internal temperatures needed for NUCLEAR BURNING This definition has been expanded to include objects such as neutron stars."
NEUTRON STAR: "A star of EXTREMELY HIGH DENSITY that is composed primarily of neutrons. The mass may be a few times the mass of our sun, while its radius is approximately 10 miles."
(The above definitions, all imaginative ASSUMPTIONS, reveal the faulty reasoning of the past is still with us today. Even a poorly educated cartoonist can spot it. Churchward pointed out that a GASEOUS SPHERE is a NEBULA with no axis to rotate around, and lacking an axis and a "hard" crust, cannot generate centrifugal force. Also lacking a molten interior layer necessary to make a Friction line against the hard crust, it cannot collect and generate gravity, magnetic, and other Forces.
Attempting to rationalize away the above problems about gas balls, some scientists today say ALL stars are "charged" or electric "PLASMA" GAS balls that IMITATE solid bodies; maintaining a spherical form, rotating on an axis and generating magnetic and centrifugal forces. Just another ASSUMPTION, so far as I can see. Please show us PROOFS aside from laboratory plasma experiments on earth. I have now read several websites specializing in PLASMA theory as well as one with the idea that the Sun is an electric plasma "lightning" ball - and so far have found them each just ASSUMPTIONS about Suns and Stars. If any reader can supply me with reasonable PROOFS, not just assumptions and laboratory experiments, to substantiate PLASMA theory for Suns and Stars, I will revise my opinions.
Further, Churchward asserted, if the revolving body or star is DENSE (has a dense crust) and is generating centrifugal and MAGNETIC FORCES, it cannot be a ball of gas. Astronomers may be deceiving themselves that the opaque, impenetrable to vision, double layer of specialized clouds and illuminated photosphere that they see (as in the case of our sun) is the "gaseous surface and body" of the Sun - or star.)
BLACK BODY: "A HYPOTHETICAL OBJECT that perfectly absorbs and emits PHOTONS at all WAVELENGTHS. The characteristics of the SPECTRUM of the emitted PHOTONS (called black body radiation) depend only on the TEMPERATURE of the object. All liquids, solids, and high-density gases behave as almost perfect black-body objects."
(Those PARTICLES called "Photons" are thrown in again in the above definition! Remember, a Photon is defined as "electromagnetic ENERGY in its particle form."
The last sentence in the definition is a surprise. Quite an assumption about "ALL liquids, solids and high density gases," if a "black body" is only a "HYPOTHETICAL OBJECT.")
BLACK HOLE: An OBJECT whose surface gravity is so high that nothing, not even light, can escape."
(With this definition the scientists make some sense. But why call a black OBJECT, a black "HOLE?" Such a VISUALLY invisible giant "Black" BODY, is holding in orbit and rotating multitudes of lesser stars in NEUTRAL ZONE orbits around itself, where its throwing outward CENTRIFUGAL FORCES and pulling in MAGNETIC FORCES, cancel each other.
This darkness shrouded, invisible to our sight, immense body, is keeping tens of thousands (or millions?) of individual smaller suns and bodies in precise orbits around itself. If James Churchward was right, it too MUST be rotating on an axis, possess a hard crust, a molten center layer and a friction line magnet, to be capable of generating such enormous magnetic and centrifugal forces.)
EFFECTIVE TEMPERATURE: "The effective temperature is defined to be the temperature that a perfect BLACK BODY of the same size must have to produce the same total LUMINOSITY as the object in question."
(Back to the "hypothetical black body!" As always, orthodox astronomers, since Churchward's time, continue to mistakenly believe that LUMINOSITY (LIGHT) always determines TEMPERATURE. Just one of several examples Churchward gave to refute that belief, was that molten steel heated beyond 2500° gave off a particular WHITE ray. An ordinary Firefly gave off the identical WHITE ray, but at a low atmospheric temperature.
In his Cosmic Forces of Mu," book one, Churchward provides extensive proofs that HEAT FORCES (and magnetic forces) are not carried in LIGHT VISIBLE RAYS. They are carried in the dark, 90% of nearly undetectable invisible, rays radiating from stars and suns, suggesting that Astronomy's calculations of the temperatures of distant stars may be inaccurate.
But the above Jastrow-Thompson definition in bold face makes absolutely no sense. No matter what the temperature, if light visible rays cannot radiate outward, are held in by the gigantic gravity of the BLACK BODY'S magnet, the body will forever remain invisible to our sight. Imagining it to be a great SUCKING HOLE into another universe is dramatic science fiction, but without a shred of real proof.
TEMPERATURE: "A measure of the random velocities of particles (atoms, molecules) comprising an object."
(NON-definition for a phenomena the writer does not comprehend!
Contrast the above with James Churchward's definition: "Temperature is the measure of the VOLUME of HEAT FORCES present in the atmosphere or the object." Nothing "random" about that.)
CENTRIFUGAL FORCE: "A FICTITIOUS FORCE that appears to push an object away from the center of a circular motion. The effect is real, but is not due to a FORCE. An object, unless constantly deflected into a curved path by a FORCE, will move in a straight line, and hence away from the center of the circular motion."
(Partly true but calling Centrifugal Force fictitious, is stupid!
If the CENTRIFUGAL FORCE from our sun - or any governing sun - was TEMPORARY, all satellites would have long ago been pulled back in by the sun's unimpeded magnetic, pulling FORCES, and ceased existence.
Or, if the Sun's magnetic force was very weak, the thrown away bodies would have flown off and disappeared in space. Clearly neither has happened with our Sun's satellites - or provably - with the satellites of other stars. The universe is NOT chaotic, Jastrow and Thompson!
It should be obvious to any observing and reasoning minds (excepting Jastrow's and Thompson's) that CONTINUOUS, unseen repellant rays with their "Forces" are radiating from our sun, continuously IN CONTACT with, and pressing against each satellite, PUSHING THEM OUTWARD.
At the same time, the Sun's great magnetic Forces are attracting and pulling the satellites in, while additionally rotating each on an axis.
Depending on the magnetic capacity of each satellite, apparently directly related to the density of each satellite's crust and the volume of affinitive electromagnetic forces each satellite possesses, the ceaseless push and pull of the Sun's forces cancel out each other at precise distances, establishing separate and precise NEUTRAL ZONES of orbit for each satellite.
Each satellite being different, makes each neutral zone of orbit different.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
I've got more peeves about orthodox science DEFINITIONS, but the above should establish a few valid reasons for my general cynicism. - Dick Fojut
-------------------------------------------------
P.S. The word "FORCE" was constantly used by James Churchward. Unlike the vagueness of orthodox definitions above about "energy," (which is also "force"), he successfully defined and explained "forces" so as to make them understandable to his reader, or as capably as anyone could when describing essentially non-material "spiritual" emanations that affect matter.
Following is his definition of "FORCE" and some of his explanations about "forces."
In his cosmological view of the universe, there are ELEMENTS (Particles of matter, no matter how large or small) and there are NON-elements; "FORCES," non-material "quantities," secondary forces, assigned specific motives and purposes in nature by the Creator, the One Supreme Infinite Force from which they emanate.
In Churchward's eyes, without these secondary Forces, no elemental particle, large or small, could MOVE, CHANGE, GO INTO ACTION - or even exist.
Without elements, the Forces would have no purpose.
Forces and elements need each other, and are always associated. Their purposeful interplay makes up our physical universe game...
---------------------------
Churchward's definition of FORCE...
"A force is that which makes changes in the position of bodies, and sometimes changes in the body itself. No body or matter, however infinitesimally small or ponderously large, can make any change without the aid of a force.
"All forces known as atomic forces are only secondary forces governed by some superior force. The superior force moves the atoms and the atoms produce or convey another or secondary force - the superior force is the responsible one. There is one great infinite force that governs all.
The movements of forces are vibratory.
A force may be obvious to the sense of feeling, but no force is obvious to the sense of vision
Forces are positive and negative. For every positive force there is a negative one.
Forces have their affinities, repellents and neutrals in other forces.
Some of the earthly forces have affinities, repellents and neutrals in elements
There is one supreme infinite force which has created four great primary forces. Through and from these four great forces all other forces are generated, and are therefore secondary. These four great forces are governing the physical universe today, and are working under the command or will of the One Supreme Infinite Force.
This supreme force is the power which started and keeps all other forces working throughout the universe.
This supreme force is incomprehensible to man. Being incomprehensible He can neither be pictured or named. He is The Nameless.
Certain of the great forces are limitless in their scope and power, reaching from one celestial body to another. Forces are responsible for the movements of all bodies throughout the universe.
It is without doubt appreciated by everyone that we are surrounded and living in the midst of forces whose power is inconceivable: and yet, while we are in their midst and they are moving and governing the immense celestial bodies, we do not feel them; they do not touch us; and if not told by observation of their effects, we should be unaware of their presence and existence. Why is it that these appalling forces do not in any way affect us? First, because being elementary, we are neutral to them, and, second, they are ultra to our minds and bodies." End of Churchward's comments on "forces."
------------------------------
Conclusion from Dick... There is great significance in the last sentence above (to me). The radiated great "FORCES" (as Churchward calls them) that reach across the universe from one body to another, seem "SPECIALIZED." The clever Designer, the Creator, has arranged existence so that puny Mankind on puny little planets like earth, are not affected by most of the CRUSHING forces radiating from giant bodies across space.
It should be obvious that such inconceivable and immense electromagnetic and other forces, though they clearly affect and control the movements of billions of Suns, Stars and Galaxies, pass right THROUGH our human bodies and our planet and do not affect us at all. We are apparently NEUTRAL to those great cosmic "forces." They are ULTRA to us, affecting ONLY the other bodies and beings in the universe they were designed to affect. They are "specialized." Because we are NEUTRAL to these great forces radiating THROUGH us, it seems to me the height of arrogance for some "scientists" to frighten us with dire warnings that increasing cosmic rays from space "bombarding" our planet may some day (soon they predict)) make earth un-liveable. Over 90% or more of such powerful unseen cosmic forces have ALWAYS passed right THROUGH our planet unnoticed, affecting earth in no apparent way. Again, they seem ULTRA to us, designed to be out of our "range."
Likewise, the forces emanating from our Sun seem also "specialized," affecting only earth and her solar system satellites, and then, only affecting SOME earthly elements. Some of the great volume of powerful and unseen, forces radiating from our Sun, to and through earth, also seem "specialized." Our elementary bodies and minds seem NEUTRAL to their apparent power. They were not designed to crush, burn or pull us apart. They too are generally ULTRA to earth's human beings, animal and vegetation life. Observing this condition as EXISTING on our earth, It seems to me (again) the height of arrogance for some "scientists" to frighten us into fearing "sunspots" and "killing" radiation assumed to now be coming from our Sun, or their other warnings that the Sun is burning itself out and shouting to the rest of us: "the end is near!" Am I being Pollyanna? Maybe. But I don't think so. Thanks for your attention.
