Info-ParaNet Newsletters, Number 146 Wednesday, February 7th 1990 Today's Topics: Re: Current Affair Upcoming Expose (?) Re: Skeptomania is cool Strange Rings in Britain Melchizedek Re: Skeptics and QM A Current Affair.. High cost of fone bills.. Re: skepticism and science KNOWLEDGE OF ALIENS Guidelines Replies/QM Re: Guidelines ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f20.n3607.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jeff.Ballard Subject: Re: Current Affair Upcoming Expose (?) Date: 7 Feb 90 05:06:00 GMT Well, surprisingly enough it was a basically positive show...no revelations, he didn't "get to the bottom" of anything...but it was a positive broadcast. -- Jeff Ballard - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jeff.Ballard@f20.n3607.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser Subject: Re: Skeptomania is cool Date: 6 Feb 90 20:09:00 GMT John: I'm becoming more and more interested in your challenge to the Global Warming crusaders. Your views would appear to have been supported in the 12/29/89 issue of Forbes (of course, this is to be expected of that bastion of Capitalism). And apparently George Bush is saying "not so fast" as well. Not sure where I stand on this one, just glad to know that your side is responsibly represented here on ParaNet. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Jim.Speiser Subject: Strange Rings in Britain Date: 6 Feb 90 20:14:00 GMT > Iron age man in Britain were great civil engineers - evidence > of their work litters the countryside of Britain, so there is no > mystery about the rings. > Regards John Daly Tasmania John, the wheatfield circles seem connected with the stone circle monuments, i.e., all 750 are within a few miles of either Stonehenge or some other monument. The monuments themselves may present no mystery, but the wheatfield circles have no explanation as of yet. My personal feeling is that it is a hoax, but I will be the first to admit that I have no proof on which to base that opinion. In the decade or so since the circles began appearing, not one soul has been caught in the act. Despite my opinion, which is more of a prediction of how things will turn out, I must dispute you at this point and state that the wheatfield circles ARE a mystery. Jim -- Jim Speiser - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Jim.Speiser@f37.n114.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f28.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG!David.Stark Subject: Melchizedek Date: 7 Feb 90 07:27:00 GMT Not all of us in "Christian circles" speculate that Melchizedek may be "an example of the pre-incarnate work of Christ". Some Bible students, such as Jehovah's witnesses, believe that Melchizedek was a prophetic picture of Jesus Christ as King. Melchizedek's lack of discernable origin prefigured the heavenly origin of the man Jesus and the various titles that he had, such as "King of Salem (peace)" also foreshadowed the fact that Jesus would be referred to as "Prince of Peace". I don't wish to get into an extended discussion of Scripture, and I'm sure you don't either. ;-) I just want to point out another viewpoint that does not necessitate making up an explanation based on something not yet proven, such as extraterrestrial corporeal life. Serious Bible students do acknowledge the existence of other life forms besides humans; we just don't believe that they are flesh and blood. -- David Stark - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: David.Stark@f28.n30163.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Paul.Faeder Subject: Re: Skeptics and QM Date: 7 Feb 90 06:09:47 GMT In an article of <5 Feb 90 16:38:16 GMT>, Gene Gross Paul, John did not write that I did. Sorry Gene. When usenet or internet messages come in here they say they're from infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com. Your name is listed in the message body but I must have missed it. >David Bohm has proposed that what we are >dealing with is the effects of a nonlocal universe. That is that the >subatomic realm is fuzzy because it is part of a greater whole to which >the some 10 to the 89th power particles we find belong. This idea has >gone a bit further, and we now have a proposal on the table that the >universe is actually a superhologram. OK tell me if I'm way off here or not. Are you (or David Bohm) saying that our universe is (or may be) a subatomic particle in another, larger universe while at the same time subatomic particles in our universe may be a universe in themselves? And when you say "superhologram" do you mean that the larger universe is projecting into ours and ours in turn, is projecting into a smaller universe? >If any of this intrigues you, I'd be happy to post a list of books that >I recommend. They cover quantum theory across the spectrum. Yes, I'm more than intrigued. I'll take you up on your offer. -- Paul Faeder - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Paul.Faeder@p0.f102.n268.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!Don.Allen Subject: A Current Affair.. Date: 7 Feb 90 05:05:00 GMT Well, I am a bit disappointed..I saw the much publicized show tonight (tues nite) and I had HOPED that Maury wouldn't approach it with his usual tongue-in-cheek manner but I was wrong. Granted he did have a FEW sparse words from Friedman and Hopkins,but (IMO) the show was "National Enquirer"..Arggg. I don't recall offhand who that guys name was at the end of the segment (the Skeptic) but I'd sure like to go one-on-one with him. Gee..maybe that was Klass's brother perhaps? (sly grin). -- Don Allen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Allen@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!Don.Allen Subject: High cost of fone bills.. Date: 7 Feb 90 05:18:00 GMT (Yes,I Know this is off-topic,but bear with me all) Mike, I'm going to be gathering some info on satellite systems in the near future. There is a box that will allow a modem hookup that will allow transmission on the infrared band. (sorta like a version of the videocypher,but for phone) At present I don't know the exact name of the hookup box,but I'll locate some info on it and send it to you, and perhaps others here may be interested. I see a possible trend developing in the near future where some cable systems may make a "deal" with the phone companies so that consumers (at some point in the future) may have *noise free,fibre optic* capability for data use. I also see a trend that satellite dishes will get smaller and perhaps small enough to mount on a house (say a 3 ft dish) and the electronics in the amplifying equipment have MUCH better gain capability and be able to receive more channels. Perhaps in just a few short years we will have communication opportunities that we can only now dream about. -- Don Allen - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Don.Allen@paranet.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) Subject: Re: skepticism and science Date: 7 Feb 90 19:34:48 GMT + From: keith@raptor.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks) + Subject: skepticism and science + + I started this thread because I subscribe to sci.skeptic on usenet. All + I have to do to get riled-up about skeptics is to read a few slams by + skeptics on topics that I consider near and dear. I admit it..... + sometimes skeptics are right. But skeptics are not always right. Keith, I quit reading that group. I didn't need the aggravation nor the additional grey hairs--I'm almost pure white haired now. I understand what you are saying. I too have a problem with people slamming things without having done their homework. The tendency to slam something that does not fit the current view or paradigm is in vogue. I can understand some of the reason for it, but it does tend to squash creativity and innovation. But science is not noted for risk taken, but for the slow and methodical accumulation of data. This data then is turned into information and knowledge. In a way, I find the pace irritating, but I also see the reason for it. I think back to some of the grander hoaxes that have been pulled on the public for personal gain by charlatans. So, I see a need for caution and skepticism. I also see a need to research and verify, which is particularly hard to do with some of the things that we discuss in this group. Having taught classes in creative problem solving, I know only too well what happens when skepticism is given free-reign. It escalates to a level of criticism that squashes the flow of thinking to produce creative and innovative ideas. The techniques that I teach are much the same as the ones taught at MIT. They aren't geared at attacking ideas but rather looking for the germ of truth in the ideas. I know that you were a bit concerned about the dumping that was being done to Lazar. I got down on him because he didn't provide information that could be used, in my opinion. After I'd read the interviews, I couldn't have cared less if he'd seen 60 saucers. What concerned me was that he said that he'd worked on a new element and propulsion system using gravity. But he didn't provide enough details to even begin searching for a germ of truth. I hate being teased like that. + The lesson is simple. Reich's books were burned. Just like + books were burned in Nazi Germany. I'm not in favor of burning any books. Selecting certain works to be banned means that someone somewhere made the decision that those works were bad. If we allow that, whose works are next? And who decides? This is not meant to say that I accept Reich's later works as having any validity. I just value books and the ideas they contain. I may not find certain thing my cup of tea, but I'm not in the position to judge. I resent that anyone thinks they can judge for me. Gene -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!p0.f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Lou.Zucaro Subject: KNOWLEDGE OF ALIENS Date: 7 Feb 90 19:21:00 GMT My name is Lou Zucaro, and I am new to Paranet. A question I have is as follows: if somebody knows for sure (or pretty sure) could you please let me know when was the first time that a picture (i.e. drawing) of an alien was published in the media. When I say alien, I mean the kind that is usually drawn or described by abductees under hypnosis, you know, 3.5 to 4 feet tall, grey skin, large almond shaped eyes, etc. It's just something I was wondering about. About the rings in England, are the rings of debate in the messages on this system the ones that were featured on "Unsolved Mysteries" last Wednesday (Jan 31)? I didn't see the show, but a friend whe did say they were more like circles than rings, and that they (again, according to the show) mysteriously would appear over- night. The show also made mention of a bood written about the "phenomenon," and if anybody knows the title or author of the book, I'd like to hear about it. ...Lou -- Lou Zucaro - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Lou.Zucaro@p0.f422.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: paranet!f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Michael.Corbin Subject: Guidelines Date: 7 Feb 90 20:20:00 GMT > From: keith@raptor.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks) > > Is there a guideline for how we are supposed to address our > posting within > the posting. For those of us coming from the internet, we > address our > correspondences to the email address > infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com. > Should we add (e.g.): > > To: Doug Rogers This is a good idea. You could place the name of the person in the subject line. Mike -- Michael Corbin - via FidoNet node 1:104/422 UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name INTERNET: Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: chalmers@violet.berkeley.edu (John H. Chalmers Jr.) Subject: Replies/QM Date: 8 Feb 90 02:12:32 GMT Gene and others: the January 16, 1990 issue of SCIENCE has an article on the effects of very low level electrical fields on cells. The latest issue has an article on a possible substruture for the electron itself. As for the space-foam idea, I think you are referring to John A. Wheeler's theories. I haven't heard anything recently, but then I'm not a quantum mechanic or cosmonogist. As I recall, it predicts density fluctuations on the order of 10 to 74th grams/cubic centimeter (H2O has a density of 1, nuclear matter is about 3 x10 15th g/cc). To your and Clarke's question, I'm not familiar with Herzfeld's work, or at least not under that name, so I don't have an opinion. Sorry. By Lamarckian, I mean the transmission of acquired characteristics. While genetics with very few apparent exceptions does not employ Lamarckian mechanisms (antibody specifying genes in lymphocytes, methylation patterns, etc.), human cultural transmission can be interpreted as an example of a generalized Lamarckian process. the capacity for language is genetic, but there in no evidence that the specific properties of languages are anything but acquired. I would omit onomatopeic words and other types of sound-symbolism from this. The observed universals almost always have counter-examples; in any case, most could be explained by descent from a common human language. Some universals may reflect general psychological factors--no language has strings of 9 vowels in a row, (so far), clause embedding is relatively shallow, etc. No language has less than about a dozen phonemes as the words would get too long, and no language has more than a hundred, as they would sound too much alike. Semantics are arbitrary and not iconic (porpoise language, if it exists, may be--they may send simulated sonar signatures to each other.) I really don't think that Sheldrakian or Lamarckian laws are necesary to explain language acquisition, though I can't explain it myself either. I don't know of MacDougal's work, Can you EMail me refs? By the way I once reviewed the literature on Ethylene Dibromide as a mutagen and teratogen. I'd appreciate if you could EMail me some references to your wife's research. RE dimensions and Mathematical Formalism: I haven't tried to get into the actual math of superstring theory, though a lot has been published on it, so I can't answer you question specifically. I added that as a disclaimer because the article I had read on 26-D spaces to model fermionic superstrings did so. The use of extra, non-physical dimensions is common in modeling. In some cases, the extra dimensions are "internal" variables, i.e. temperature, color, which are needed to describe the system but don't refer to locations in space or time. In other situations the physical dimensionality is increased to take advantage of the sometimes simpler mathematics of the higher dimensioned systems, then the equations are reduced back to the 3-D form. Prof Dudley Hershbach at Harvard has done a lot of this in quantum chemical computations. Mathematicians define the dimensionality as the number of coordinates nedded to locate a point. They could have any physical interpretation whatever, though I think we are most interested in physical space-like and time-like dimensions. I hope this clarified things somewhat rather than confuse them further. To whomever: I don't think the choice of metaphor comparing skepticism to racism particularly apt or appropriate for this conference. Skepticism is antithetical to racism and the leading US skeptics are violently opposed to racism and its pseudoscientific justifications. Read Steven Jay Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man," for example. Skeptics have been rightly skeptical of racist theories, be they derived from the bible, Social Darwinism, Communism (the "new Soviet Man"), Fascism or what ever. Enough spleen this evening--I just got invited to go out drinking with some shrinks and social workers.----John -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: infopara Subject: Re: Guidelines Date: 8 Feb 90 02:59:04 GMT In article <56263.25D09876@paranet.FIDONET.ORG> Michael.Corbin@f428.n104.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Michael Corbin) writes: + + > From: keith@raptor.cray.com (Keith A. Fredericks) + > + > Is there a guideline for how we are supposed to address our + > posting within + > the posting. For those of us coming from the internet, we + > address our + > correspondences to the email address + > infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com. + > Should we add (e.g.): + > + > To: Doug Rogers + +This is a good idea. You could place the name of the person in +the subject line. + +Mike Better idea: (To: Doug Rogers) reason is email is mailed into 'rnews' and it will stumble on 'To:' or extra 'From:' line left open (not closed by '>' or '-+') as 'rn' or other newsreaders do. We have have our mailer cause a problem, but when the digest maker runs, it does strange things to these articles. -Cyro -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ INFO-PARANET NEWSLETTER ADMIN paranet-request@scicom.alphacdc.com ARTICLE SUBMISSION infopara@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM ********To have your comments in the next issue, send electronic mail to******** 'infopara' at the following address: UUCP {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara DOMAIN infopara@scicom.alphacdc.com ADMIN Address infopara-request@scicom.alphacdc.com {ncar,isis,boulder}!scicom!infopara-request ******************The**End**of**Info-ParaNet**Newsletter************************