Friday, December 5, 2008

Imagination Vs. Measurement

Math Vs. Physical Science or Imagimetry Vs. Geometry.

There was a time (back in the days of philosophy) when geometry actually meant "Earth Measure." Measurement is an empirical physical science. It's truths are determined empirically through measurement of physical material. Today, geometry doesn't measure anything. Geometry has become Imagimetry. Instead of measuring the Earth with a ruler as geometry once did, Imagimetry on the other hand measures imaginary mathematical space with a magic ruler that has no defined units of measurement.

Where did science go wrong? One word: Newton. "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy" are not "Empirical Conclusions of Physical Science." Science went wrong when it started worshipping Newtonian "absolute, true, and mathematical time" while ignoring the fact that Kantian mathematical time is a priori and not a physical object in itself. Physical "relative, apparent, and common time" must be measured with actual units. "Absolute, true, and mathematical" time on the other hand has no units because it is imaginary.

"Nothing exists until it is measured." -- Niels Bohr, physicist, 1930

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." -- Nikola Tesla, physicist, 1934

"The elements of the physical reality cannot be determined by a priori philosophical considerations [aka mathematics], but must be found by an appeal to results of experiments and measurements." -- Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, physicists, 1935

Stephen Smith: What is truth?

Astronomical research in the virtual realm [aka imagination] instigates foregone conclusions [aka a priori mathematical principles].

The Thunderbolts Picture of the Day has never considered questions that involve the search for subjective meaning in the universe to be necessary when analyzing the observations that NASA and other research groups provide. It is enough in most instances to draw correspondence between the theories proposed in peer-reviewed journals and the concepts embodied in Electric Universe [EU] hypotheses. The so-called anomalies in consensus opinions tend to disappear in most cases when EU theory is brought to bear on the questions.

A recent article in the scientific press highlights the disparity between the conclusions that should be drawn from observations and those that are drawn from within the imagination.

"Jupiter has a rocky core that is more than twice as large as previously thought, researchers announced today."

On its face the headline is not unusual and seems to indicate that evidence has been uncovered supporting a previously held theory. Not only that, the previous theory is tacitly assumed to have been correct because new information is enabling them to amplify its conclusions. However, when the announcement is fleshed-out the headline has no basis in evidence at all:

"Burkhard Militzer, a geophysicist at the University of California, Berkeley, and his colleagues ran computer simulations to look at conditions inside Jupiter... With information gleaned from these simulations, the researchers developed another computer model..."


Anaconda said...


As has been posted and commented, Newtonian gravity has its limits and doesn't explain cosmology very well. Gravity in relation to electromagnetism is weak.

Electromagnetism is 10^39 more powerful than gravity. That is:

000,000,000,000,000 stronger.

Gravitational model astronomers' response is to say electromagnetism's greater strength was only true over atomic scale distances.

I've asked for authority for that proposition but never received any.

But apparently this sentiment is wide-spread in the astrophysical community.

The following discussion was in this article: Charge Separation in Space, August 03, 2004 (

"One of the basic assumptions of astrophysics today is that electrical forces play no part in cosmology because “you can’t get charge separation in space”. But x-ray images of space objects tell a different story."

All this is to say I am convinced of the Electric Universe theory.

While gravity plays a important role, electromagnetism explains more of the scientific observations in the Cosmos.

That said:

Newton's description of gravity and the principles identified did allow Man to go to the Moon and back alive!

This is no small achievement.

As I've commented, here, on the Oil Is Mastery website, mathematics when subjucated to physical observation and measurement can be a helpful servant to scientific understanding and applied material science.

To "banish" mathematics from science is wrongheaded; its "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." And ultimately would retard Man from understanding the Universe and tapping into its energy and power.

I don't believe electrical engineers would call for the "bansihment" of mathematics from there discipline.

Indeed, they would state that mathematics is essential to their discipline.

The problem manifests itself when abstract mathematical equations become divorced from physical observation and measurement; when abstract mathematical equations derived from general principles are applied to predict specific objects or mechanics that have never been observed close up.

Today, we have in astronomy, far-off lights and radiations that from this distance are ambiguous as to their "structure" or their "causation".

Because of the abiguous nature of the observations and measurements, the door has been opened to conjecture and speculation based on abstract mathematical formula.

As Galileo stated: The language of Nature is mathematics.

From the earliest, starting roughly with the Greek philosopher, Pythagorass, Nature's wonders have been made more intelligible by mathematical relationships.

Man has progressed and advanced in his understanding of the Universe with the assistance of mathematics.

As with any powerful tool, mathematics can be misused and in astronomy that appears to be the present case.

But again, the wholesale dismissal of mathematics from science is Luddite in its mentality and a wrong reading of history, both philosophical and scientific.

The question isn't whether one individual is off-track, that will happen inevitably from time to time, rather, question is will Man in general have the wisdom to pursue avenues that will advance his Quest of understanding the Universe.

Mathematics will continue to assist Man in that Quest as long as it is subserient to observation and measurement.

OilIsMastery said...

No one is saying mathematics should be banished. Indeed, since space, time, and mathematics are a priori it would be impossble to do so. What we are saying is that these ideas must always be in accordance with observation and experience.

OilIsMastery said...

Although it is true,

"...the combination of empirical knowledge with mathematics [is] seen in the work of Galileo...." -- Werner Heisenberg, physicist, 1958

It is not true that the language of Nature is mathematics. Rather, the language of man is mathematics. In actuality Nature doesn't speak at all in any language.

NiteSkyGirl said...

wow that was great to read !

Anaconda said...


Why is Einstein exalted in the scientific community?


This mathematical formula was seemingly proved by the invention and detination of the atom bomb.

And Einstein's letter to President Roosevelt advocating the idea of creating an atomic bomb which ended WWII in victory over Japan stood out in men's minds.

In truth, Einstein was at best peripherally involved in the actual development of the "mechanism" of the A-bomb.

Others were intricately involved, but E=MC^2 and the letter to Roosevelt indelibly connected Einstein to the birth of the atomic age.

Einstein's General Relativity theory, prior to the conclusion of WWII was almost entirely unproved theory. Only after the war was over did investigation into the Cosmos get underway in a big way. Oh sure, prior to the war, Man had his telescopes trained on the heavens, but an explosion of investigation after the war was undertaken.

By this time Einstein's reputation was made and any theory that had his name on it was gold. In terms of common sense, gravity seemed to be the predominate force in the Universe. It held men down to the Earth didn't it, and the planets in orbit around the Sun and, of course, the Moon in orbit around the Earth and influenced the tides.

The only problem was that on close inspection of the heavens there didn't seem to be enough mass and, therefore, enough gravity to hold the Universe together.

How could this be?

How could the great man responsible for the atomic age be wrong? How could common sense be wrong?

Simple: Einstein couldn't be wrong, neither could common sense -- there had to be "missing" mass that Man could not detect with his limited vision into the heavens.

And there were plenty of mathematicians ready and willing to come up with new mathematical equations that could explain the "missing" mass and, therefore, gravity.

But refusal to part with Einstein's theories led to the invention of "black holes" and somebody came up with the "big bang" and declared Einstein's theories "proved" it. Later, when it was apparent that "black holes" weren't enough to explain galaxies, "dark matter", "dark energy", and even "strange matter" was conjured to "prove" the gravitational model was valid.

Now, it was only a matter of "finding" these objects to prove the theory.

Under these circumstances, is it any wonder ambiguous 'lights' and 'radiations' were shoehorned into the theory by ingeneous and creative descriptions that may or may not in fact have a basis in reality. And the gravitational model seemingly had no alternative theory to rival it and question the theory, itself, or its various interpretations.

But there was a little known theory, plasma Cosmology, supported by plasma physics demonstrated in the laboratory and led by the brilliant plasma physicist Hannes Alfven who ultimately won the 1970 Nobel prize in physics for his plasma work in the laboratory.

Still, this theory was too unknown and gravitational model astrophysicists could shoehorn the limited observations into the predominate theory.

But a funny thing happened. As Man's instruments of observation for viewing into the heavens became more sensitive to 'radiations' not visible to the naked eye, and the resolution of regular light telescopes increased, more and more observations were made that were inconsistent with the gravitational model and consistent with Plasma Cosmology.

But Einstein couldn't be wrong, could he?

Man's exaltation of a man stood athwart a reconsideration of a theory that was increasingly failing to predict or explain new observations.

The question is, how long will one man's reputation stand in the way of scientific progress?

Time will tell?

Anaconda said...


It seems each theory, the gravitational model and Plasma Cosmology, respectively has a weakness.

The gravitational model doesn't find ehough mass in the heavens to generate the gravity required by the theory.

Plasma Cosmology doesn't identify the "source" or dynamo that originates and generates the cosmic electrical currents required to sustain the theory.

But by and large, gravitational model astrophysicists leave this objection "unstated".


Because to make the objection is to acknowledge that there is a multiplicity of scientific observations that validate the electromagnetic nature of the Universe.

From Birkeland currents connecting the Sun to the Earth, and galaxtic Birkeland currents detected in the various nebula, and laboratory experiments simulating galaxy development using only plasma, and Z- pinch phenomenon viewed in deep space, and many more, these phenomenon like a sky writer in the vast blue sky are leaving their signature for Man to see in the heavens.

But gravitational model astrophysicists dare not admit to the overwhelming electrical characteristic of these observations.

So the "unstated" objection remains unstated.

Possibly, gravitational model astrophysicists realize that to make this objection will mean the "horse" is already out the barn door.