Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Info-ParaNet Newsletters Volume 1 Number 146
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 <gross@dg-rtp.dg.com+ writes:
>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************************
