US Indymedia Global Indymedia Publish About us
Printed from Boston IMC : http://boston.indymedia.org/
Boston.Indymedia
IVAW Winter Soldier

Winter Soldier
Testimonies
Brad Presente

Other Local News

Spare Change News
Open Media Boston
Somerville Voices
Cradle of Liberty
The Sword and Shield

Local Radio Shows

WMBR 88.1 FM
What's Left
WEDS at 8:00 pm
Local Edition
FRI (alt) at 5:30 pm

WMFO 91.5 FM
Socialist Alternative
SUN 11:00 am

WZBC 90.3 FM
Sounds of Dissent
SAT at 11:00 am
Truth and Justice Radio
SUN at 6:00 am

Create account Log in
Comment on this article | Email this article | Printer-friendly version
Hidden with code "Other"
()
Commentary :: Education
Proof of an idea (science or mis-representations)
01 May 2013
Editors (and/or journalists) are the gate-keepers of society’s truth, the expression of ideas in the media, where that truth is determined by the beliefs and interests of the editors’ paymaster, whereas the editors and journalists defer their gate-keeping judgments concerning “what society is supposed to identify as the truth” to the expert authorities, ie those high-paid wage-slaves who express the authoritative dogmas upon which the production of the ruling class’s investment-structures depend, ie these are the allowed absolute truths in regard to how society is organized in relation to knowledge and creativity so as to serve the interests of the investor-class.
This is an example of how the “owners of the instruments” of the communication system, who are also acting as paymasters for the editors, are able to control the thought and language of their (well-paid and loyal) wage-slave editors, who report on the dogmas which the experts (whom are themselves wage-slaves), within the society, follow.
This is still the Roman example of a professional army (eg editors, journalists, and expert-authorities, as well as the military personal) being controlled by the ruling class.
In the US, the ruling class still directs the army, but now it is an army of wage-slaves. Furthermore these high-paid wage-slaves (who serve private investor interests) are now most often paid-for by the public (in the military, and in research institutions), where the individuals within these armies are duped into a mis-directed sense of self-importance (apparently, measured by relative salary-size, and a mis-guided cheer-leading, provided by the media, for the expert knowledge of our culture, where narrowly defined expert knowledge provides another example of the organization of knowledge and creativity, which, in turn, is used to oppress the public’s individual creative efforts) and a subsequent desire of these (misguided) expert individuals to desire to be protected from the (other) inferior people.
Since the ruling-class controls this social set-up, and yet they are only tangentially involved, the process becomes a self perpetuating closed-circle within society, driven by: conflict, competition, the definition of high-social-value by the media, and often extreme violence (but it is the public institutions which serve the interests of the ruling-class which most express an extreme violence against the public [as well as expressing extreme (intellectual) violence against ideas which interfere with the interests of the ruling-class]).
The public takes on the values of the ruling-class, since the communication system continually repeats these values, and no other ideas are allowed (with the implication being that “the other ideas” are not correct [only the experts whom work for the ruling-class are capable of expressing truth]).

Perhaps the editors (or the experts whom the editors represent) should provide a brief “rational explanation” as to why they believe their beliefs are superior to a new set of ideas (about math and physics) presented here (latter in this paper), so as to justify their extermination of the free expression of ideas, where the extermination of these ideas is done by exclusion (or by delayed publication), of these expressions.
Is the reason for this exclusion (or hiding) simply that these “gate-keepers of truth editors” believe-in a dogma….,
(and part of that dogma is that the professional math and physicists determine “the truth” about math and physics ideas [though the math community were interested to listen to these new ideas by m concoyle at one of their professional meetings], yet these new ideas are excluded by editors even though these new ideas are presented at an understandable [relatively non-technical] level, concerning general categories of language, in fact, it is a very educational discussion for the public about both math and physics, and the relation of knowledge to practical creativity)
…, and these editors have become well-paid personal, within the media, because they do uphold this dogma.
Thus, due to their high-paid social status they are arrogant, and subsequently, these editors insist that “everyone else must believe what they, “the editors,” (or the beliefs of the ruling-class) believe (or everyone else must hear, or read, only the ideas that these editors believe-in),”

…, or do these editors believe that others must follow the beliefs of they, “the editors,” and that “this is a good-enough reason to exterminate all others (or all other ideas)?” [Similar to how the puritans arbitrarily exterminated to native people, based on the puritans believing that they were superior people compared to the native people.]

That is, it is difficult to distinguish how exclusion based on arbitrary belief, eg possessing a high-salary, is any different from the Puritans exterminating the native people, in order to acquire the property of the native peoples, so that they, the Puritans, could, in turn, “prosper” within the context of European social norms (narrow arrays of products which are familiar to the markets, which are based on investment in a European culture), so as to demonstrate to other Puritans in their community that the Puritan-God identifies the intrinsic goodness of the prosperous Puritans, and thus God allows them to prosper, where prosperity is defined in terms of European social norms (this is Calvinism).
This is an example of “the use of extreme violence” for the purpose of upholding a narrow, authoritative, dogmatic language construct (business prosperity implies godly virtues, where prosperousness defined in narrow ways, the few products which define a narrow market, in turn, related to investment within a European culture, a culture dominated by the extremely violent (and narrow) social structures, which Europe inherited from the Roman-empire).
This is obsessive, psychopathological behavior, based on an arbitrary belief in the superior authority of a very narrow and arbitrary viewpoint.
Similarly, today (2013), the oil-companies are allowed to exclude the business development of alternative clean-energy sources, eg thermal-solar sources of energy (and associated batteries), and this is done (mostly) by controlling the media, which are the instruments of communication, both public media as well as the expert communication publications (constrained to be relevant to a narrow set of products [knowledge is related to a narrow definition concerning technical creativity] which define monopolistic market structures).
Furthermore, the issue, in regard to the over-use of oil, may still be about “the extermination of life” vs. “the selfish interests of the ruling-class (to squeeze oil resources for all the profits they can get).”

Perhaps the experts should re-evaluate Godel’s incompleteness theorem, and see that the development and use of descriptive knowledge requires equal free-speech concerning assumptions, contexts, interpretations and set containment, etc, upon which a precise descriptive language is based.

Placing written expression onto a computing media could allow for the classification of “expressed ideas”…,
(where one of the classifications could be,
1. arbitrary belief in dogmatic, or personal [or racial], superiority,
another classification could be about
2. “how math relates to measurable models of existence upon which practical creativity can be based”)
…, and the realizing new ways of organizing language, in order to better realize accurate descriptions and their relation to practical creativity,
ie not only the creativity which supports the ruling class (and the over-seeing…, by a narrowly defined class of experts…, the instruments upon which the ruling class relies for its social power).
3. Etc,
…, in regard to the classification of written expression…. and the principle concern for a society of equal creators….. namely, the relation of the expression of ideas to practical creativity…

But the experts are not in control of how the communication instruments are used and organized, in society, rather they form an army of loyal competitors, where their competition is defined by a narrow dogma (which, nonetheless, is claimed to be about considering all types of “valid” ideas, but “‘valid’ means consistent with the dogma”) (competitors who are loyal to the high-social-values defined by the ruling-class).

On the other hand, (in contrast to the Puritans) the Quakers (mostly) lived in harmony with the native people, and the Quaker community was an egalitarian community and it was a more prosperous, and more energetic community than was the Puritan community, in colonial America…
(though prosperity is [was] still being narrowly defined [by the Quakers] in regard to the European social norms for prosperity, ie the result of this was “that the Quakers got integrated into the narrow vision of the European life-style” ),

…, the Quaker colony gave more careful considerations to the wisdom which was possessed by the culture of the native people…,
…, where the biological systems of the Americas were more abundant than were the biological systems of Europe (the American biological systems were upholding “as large a population,” if not a larger population than, as was the Europe population at the same time, and this was because of the very diverse types of natural resources that the native people used for their sustenance (the native people used a wider-range of practical knowledge in order to survive), and yet, the leisure time for the native American people was probably greater than was the leisure time for most Europeans at that time, eg around 1650 {or before there was a lot of European contact with the native American people, ie before 1500}).
The European (Roman) model of society was narrow, exploitative, and destructive, (the bankers had become the equivalent of the Roman emperors), and it required growth and a subsequent ever-greater destructiveness, in order to uphold the less-risky narrow model of society based on investment (within narrow and highly controlled markets, or contexts of actions [ie practical creativity is required to be narrowly defined]).

Current dogmas concerning physics are not related to practical creativity, ie and this failure of current (2013) physics show that physics is not a valid model of scientific truth,

The failure of currently accepted dogmas associated to physical science…, dogmas which only relate to “nuclear reaction rate” dependent technologies, eg nuclear bombs…., in turn, requires that the current authorities of the physical sciences prove that alternative ideas are logically unworkable…..

Quantum physics is both inaccurate and unrelated-able to practical creative development.

In classical physics general laws apply to a wide range of systems, so that the solutions to the defining differential equations of classical physical systems provide a sufficiently precise description of the system’s observed properties (for these many systems) so that various other classical subsystems can be:
1. made,
2. placed in relation to one another in space, and
3. their different properties controlled by adjusting the conditions associated to the subsystems, so as to
4. realize (control) and use these properties in a practical way.

In quantum physics the spectra of “general quantum systems” cannot be found to sufficient precision, and these quantum systems are most often composed of many-(but-few)-components, which are usually small components, but these many small components are being described by the properties of probability within quantum physics, so that no control can be realized for these systems…, (and when placed in relation to one another their quantum properties can be changed)…,
but nonetheless the spectral properties of these quantum systems are very stable, and this implies that these, so called, quantum systems are formed in a controllable context, ie the descriptions of these quantum systems need to be both determinable and controllable. [and This is what the new ideas about math and physics allow.]

See scribd.com : enter on search bar: m concoyle

Proof that current scientific dogmas are wrong is that they cannot describe, in a general way, the stability of physical systems which are observed to exist…,
where the currently accepted scientific dogmas are based on indefinable randomness and quantitatively inconsistent non-linearity, and where both of these math constructs are quantitatively contained in a continuum, where the set-size of the continuum is allowing logically-inconsistent structures (math patterns) to be defined by convergences, associated with various different contexts, into the same continuum containing-set, eg the existence of point-particle-collisions in a description based on randomness (this is an inconsistent math construct),

…, furthermore, the current scientific constructs are mostly proper subsets of the new context….,
(except for the quantitatively inconsistent ones, the logically inconsistent ones, and the unstable contexts, though unstable non-linear systems are allowed, but they are still unstable in the new context).

The proof that the new ideas are correct….,
…, is that there are (do exist) stable systems: from nuclei, to general atoms, to molecules, to the solar-system, etc,…,
…, where the new context is based on: many-dimensions which are partitioned by a finite set of very stable discrete hyperbolic shapes of both macroscopic and microscopic size scales, and where the new context is capable of describing the properties of stable systems.

This failure of modern physics is an example of the limitations of a language, where the language is based on assumptions and particular contexts which, in turn, limit what patterns that a given precise language can describe,
eg this is essentially the same example as:
Copernican system vs. the Ptolemaic system
(both are descriptive languages, but each is based on a different set of assumptions; furthermore (at that time, in fact, Ptolemy’s system provided more precise predictions than did the Copernican system), both are measurably verified, but the data is interpreted in different ways [where each descriptive language depends on the model within which the data is interpreted]).

Since that fact that there is a set of fundamental physical systems, which are “stable many-(but-few)-body systems” eg:
general nuclei,
general atoms, and
molecules,
as well as the macroscopic solar-system,
…, where all together the stability of these systems proves that the new description defines a containment set which is capable of providing a more accurate description of the stable properties of these systems, since the current dogma (based on indefinable randomness and non-linearity) is not capable of providing valid descriptions of the very stable spectra…, of these various types of very stable systems…, to sufficient precision, wherein such a description is actually based on physical law, and a subsequent process of deduction, which is logically consistent.

(furthermore, the currently accepted dogma cannot claim that “the containing quantitative context of their own descriptive context is valid for some aspects of their own theory,” and subsequently their own descriptive structure must be adjusted, eg renormalization; that is, the “particle-collision model in a context of uncertainty” causes logical (or structural math) problems (indeed it does cause problems), {where the particle-collisions are defined as converges of mixtures of positive and negative time states (or coordinate frames) for the colliding particles (in a context of electromagnetic [or Lorentz-invariant] wave-functions)} and this convergence of sums of sets of opposite time-state (of hyperbolic wave-equations) should not have been allowed in the first place. It is logically inconsistent, and this logical inconsistency leads to arbitrary descriptive processes…).

Another better interpretation of the particle-collision data, which is obtained from high-energy particle-accelerators

That is, The current dogma must prove that the following statement is incorrect..;…
…, U(1) x SU(2) x SU(3) is the natural structure of component (or, equivalently, particles which possess unstable shapes) decay, in regard to the unstable particle-components which are contained within 3-space after high-energy particle-collisions (in which higher-dimensional shapes were broken-apart)….

If the dogmatists have no such proof, other than claiming that their context is an absolute truth (and everything should be deduced from (or interpreted within) their assumptions),…then please point to papers, based on the currently (2013) accepted physical law, and a valid deductive process, which identify, to sufficient precision, the entire stable spectra of general: nuclei, atoms, molecules, and/or crystals…..

That these (just mentioned) systems are stable, as well as the [many-(but-few)-body] solar-system being stable, proves that the new context is the more accurate context (the more correct containment context) within which to describe (and use in a practical manner) observed physical properties. Since the new descriptive context provides these systems with stable and sufficiently precise, spectral properties.
The new descriptive context can describe the stable properties, of these just mentioned systems, because the properties of these systems, as well as their new descriptive structures, result from their being stable, “discrete hyperbolic shapes,” which might be folded, based on Weyl-angles (which are defined within the metric-space’s fiber Lie group).
Furthermore, upon the various toral components of the “discrete hyperbolic shapes” angular momentum can be defined.

A many-dimensional context is best given a context of being related to stable shapes (so that stable systems can be fit into the descriptive context), so that these stable shapes can be of all size-scales…, (whereas string-theory requires that higher-dimensions be small shapes)…., which are related to various “dimensional-and-size determined set-containment ‘trees,’” defined within the 11-dimensional hyperbolic metric-space, which is the over-all high-dimension containment-set, for the set of stable shapes of various dimensions, sizes, and contained in the various subspaces, within which they can be contained.
These stable shapes are defined in such a containment set by resonance with a finite spectral set, which is associated to a dimensional and subspace partition of this (same) containment set, where the partition is determined by a finite set of stable “discrete hyperbolic shapes,” which also form into “trees” of set-containment, wherein these allowed “discrete hyperbolic shapes” define both material-components and metric-spaces, depending on dimension and size (of the shapes) so as to allow for material containment within a metric-space.
Except for issues of resonances and subsequent containment of stable components of lower-dimension within higher-dimensional metric-spaces, these dimensional subspaces are independent of one another (due to the structure of material interactions).

Both reliable measuring, as well as stable system properties:… only exist in a many-dimension containment set, which, in turn, is related to a finite set of stable shapes (or equivalently a finite set of stable spectra)….

But a many-dimensional containment set, wherein the dimensional levels are given shapes (for each dimensional level and for each subspace) of various size-scales, is a descriptive context which transcends the idea of materialism, yet it contains (can contain) the material-world as a proper subset.
This is an important property, in regard to the relation that life has to existence….

How science works in the corporate era:

Some technologies…. derived from scientific models…. work, and they might become associated to complicated instruments, and/or complicated methods, where these (complicated) processes fit into both a descriptive context provided by science and the productive interests of some big (monopolistic) business.
…. So these working instruments become ever more complicated, and used in many contexts.
This complication of instrumentation and it descriptive context, in turn, is used to define the vocations associated to the technical departments at universities eg engineering and physics and math departments etc.

At university institutions, the physics and math departments claim to be tolerant of many ideas, yet they are based on narrowly defined dogmas (associated to particular instruments, eg physics is associated with the data from particle-accelerators).
Essentially, new ideas are not considered in their own context, but rather new ideas must be consistent with the assumptions upon which the narrow dogmas are based (this is what peer-review actually is), ie one cannot compete with the professionals unless one plays by their fixed [crooked] rules, [a competitive professional community becomes a dogmatic community which adjusts specialized instruments], eg it now would be required that the ideas of Copernicus must be assumed to be consistent with the assumptions of the Ptolemaic system and then the new patterns (of Copernicus) are to be proved by deduction, ie this cannot be done.
That is, the university departments are blind to their belief in the “absolute truth of their dogmas” and the: assumptions, contexts, and interpretations, which the (instrument-adjusting) professionals… of the academic system…, demand,
ie they are arrogant and intolerant (they are a well-paid army of professional wage-slaves who adjust the instruments of the ruling-class), yet claim to consider all valid ideas, but their dogma determines what they consider valid.


In regard to the functional aspect of science:
Is the functional (or practically useable) part of science to be about?
Either
The solvable aspects of classical physics, which determine all technical development? Eg technical development based on the ideas of: materialism, local-measuring, eg physical law, and the useful aspects of this descriptive context are the solvable models (or if non-linear then the differential equations define a system’s limit-cycles, which, in turn, identify converging or diverging dynamical behavior of the system components, which (often) can be controlled by feedback) However, the non-linear theory of general relativity has no capacity to describe a stable system, yet, the solar-system is (apparently) stable.
Or
In quantum physics:
Materialism which can be reduced to sets of random particle events in space and time, in turn, this context is modeled as function-spaces associated to local Hermitian operators (or modeled globally, to a group of unitary operators, ie function-values [or the quantum systems’ wave-functions] are complex-numbers), eg the globally defined equations, eg the energy-operators of quantum systems are energy-invariant systems.
It is assumed that this math structure can be associated to a set of stable patterns of particle-decay associated to particle-collision models of quantum interactions. But this is not given a math context which allows for the description a stable system, but rather the context is of randomness and instability.

Math patterns

Quantitative patterns are considered by math, and perhaps the most important quantitative (algebraic) pattern is that of commutative property, ie ab=ba, especially, in regard to a many-dimensional containment coordinate set (for a system and its “defining” measurable properties, ie conserved properties), ie a and b are matrices, which allows for local independent measuring sets for each separate-dimension, which, in turn, allows for quantitative consistency in a context of geometric measures on the system containing coordinate space.
The continuously commutative at each point, set of linear differential equations, which model physical systems, are the linear, solvable differential equations of classical physics.
But the commutative property for operators acting on function-spaces also determine if a quantum system’s spectral properties can be found.
In general, such commutative structures cannot be found for general quantum systems.
Thus the model of particle-collision interactions, used to perturb the energy properties of a quantum wave-function, is mostly an irrelevant idea.
The assumption of quantum physics is that, “whatever the observed spectra of any quantum system “might be” then that is the spectra which the probability-based quantum theory is to be consistent with,” but general quantum systems are not related to the observed spectra by means of a relation between the system’s function-space and its set of “spectral defining operators.”
This means:
(1) that quantum description is a description based on indefinable randomness, and
(2) this assumed “agreement with observed spectra” is, apparently, the basis for the (thin) claim that “there is not any quantum system which has violated the laws of quantum physics,”
ie quantum physics assumes the spectra for its system-defining operator (based quantum description) is that same spectra which is observed in the lab (for each system), but the (operator)-(function-space) descriptive context of quantum physics cannot identify this spectral set by (valid) calculations (commutativity of operators cannot be realized on the function-space which is modeling a general quantum system).

Math that works (allows commutative quantitative patterns)

(in regard to bounded systems) It is only the toral shapes and the shapes composed on toral components, ie the discrete hyperbolic shapes, which are the linear, solvable shapes for systems [as well as the linear differential equations with constant coefficients, often associated to electrical circuits].

Thus, there is less need to determine solutions to equations, the solutions to equations of stable structures are already known (ie the allowed set of discrete hyperbolic shapes, as well as the interpretation that these stable underlying shapes of existence determine an envelope of stability in which the usual second order differential equations are defined and partly applicable until the stable shapes become the more relevant context of the system, ie the system bumps into the envelope. That is, the envelopes of stability are more obvious (and intrusive) in quantum orbital structures than in the macroscopic structure of the solar-system.), and thus the issues of description are about relative sizes of the stable systems, and trees-of-containment in regard to both dimension and subspace size, as well as finding the finite-set of spectra which is associated to an entire 11-dimensional containing hyperbolic metric-space, where there can be many of these types of over-all containing spaces.
Furthermore, there are now new ways in which angular momentum…,
now defined in regard to tori (in Euclidean space, ie associated with inertial properties), and toral components of stable (hyperbolic) shapes,
…, being related to infinite extent properties of stable systems eg electron-clouds of charged quantum systems (wherein the neutrino is to be modeled).
Thus, angular momentum can (may) be used to identify both high-dimensional control over lower-dimensional (contained) components (whereas component interactions are confined to adjacent dimensional levels), and there is also a new context of control in regard to an infinite-extent stable shape being connected to another, unbounded, 11-dimensional containment set.
That is, stable systems must be resonant with the finite spectral set of the 11-dimensional containing hyperbolic metric-space, while other unstable properties are still allowed by the different second-order dynamic (partial) differential equations associated to both Newton’s laws and material geometry, but now there is a discrete toral geometric structure associated to material interaction (discretely defined by the property of action-at-a-distance), and its associated local equations, ie local measuring defined on both material components of the interaction and the toral (action-at-a-distance) geometry which is associated to the discrete interaction, ie a connection (or local-measuring) operator structure for material (or system-component) interactions.

Classical physics concerning material in space and time can be succinctly summarized as:

Inertia’s locally (linear) measurable definition at a given (material) component’s given position in space being related to the force-field at that (same) given position due to the material geometric properties surrounding the given component, where the force-fields are (can be found in regard to) local relations between local (linear) geometric-measures of the force-field being equated to surrounding properties of material geometry (and in regard to charge, including material motions).

Physics is all about how math relates to the precise descriptions of observed physical patterns.

The biggest problem with which science has had to deal, is that the differential equation was found and solved (by Newton), but it was only understood in a limited context, and that limited context is where there are sufficient restraints on a physical system that a global solution to a system’s defining differential equation can be found, and this has led to confusion about:
1. local measuring,
2. function-space techniques,
[leading to non-linear and indefinably random contexts for measurable descriptions, which are defined on quantitative containment sets which are continuums, ie but these continuums are sets which are “too big,” so that logical consistency can be breached by convergences defined within such a containment context],
and
3. the relation that a differential equation (or models of local [linear] measuring) has to discrete and stable descriptive contexts (ultimately related to quantitative structures based on finite sets, or [at most] on rational approximations), where the containing metric-spaces have (physical) properties associated to themselves, and thus the description also has a metric-space state structure (of pairs of opposite metric-space properties) associated to itself. That is, there are distinct metric-spaces wherein inertia is described (or contained) [Euclidean space], and there are separate (and different) spaces in which energy is contained [hyperbolic space, or equivalently, space-time]. Missing this pattern is one of the main failings of classical physics, where local linear measuring and its relation to geometry is central, while for function-space techniques, when the description is in a metric-space coordinate containment context then the functions (of the function-space) need to be related to the relevant “discrete hyperbolic shapes” as well as the toral shapes (and the toral components of the stable shapes) which are part of the description of the stable system. [Note: That, mass is equal to energy, is a result of the relation that the momentum-energy 4-vector has to the position-time 4-vector in space-time. This is about the spatial-displacement-inertial symmetries and the temporal-displacement-energy invariance symmetries associated to E Noether.] The math issues of the apparent classical and quantum non-compatibility are resolved by giving the classical notion of local linear measuring a (new) context of being given a local discrete operator structure, in relation to an underlying stable structure of discrete hyperbolic shapes, and structure of a Euclidean action-at-a-distance structure, which is allowed by the results of a Aspect’s experiments, of which whose data can be interpreted to mean that there is a non-local (discrete) structure to material interactions.

Unfortunately, the confusion which has existed in mathematical constructs (concerning differential equations) is used as smoke-screen to make the “descriptive structures of math patterns” relations to “useful measurable information about physical systems” even more difficult to understand, ie it is (has been) used to define an arbitrary hierarchy of math-science-value.

This allowing an arbitrary domination of certain math ideas is about identifying authorities and allowing those particular experts to become dominant.
In fact, today, the authorities are more like balloons, they are mostly filled with hot-air, while they are encouraged to prance-around and “posture as being very important” within the settings of “important” institutional buildings. While their “knowledge” contributes nothing to practical technical development.
This is about arbitrary authority, and its primary use is to exterminate other ideas…,
…, whereas if the people of the world are not allowed to form into living styles which are harmonious with the earth,
…, the narrowly defined (and arbitrary) hierarchy of both intellect and market-products, which is organized in this narrow manner so as to support only the investor-class, will accelerate the society’s relationship to its own extermination.
A hierarchical social structure is intrinsically intolerant, and the hierarchical position of its ruling-class is based on the ruling-class’s willingness to exterminate, but when it is a measurable description, and the nature of math and its relation to measurable descriptions of observed patterns is being carefully discussed, then the exclusion of these ideas without a rational basis and only expresses intolerance of ideas which are not a part of the accepted dogma so that the extermination of such expressions is a form of extreme violence based on arbitrary issues of social-class, in a hierarchical structure of wage-slaves protecting the interests of their paymasters (furthermore, such intellectual intolerance is in no-way different from (or is worse than) racial intolerance). (in fact, the ideas discussed in these papers are open physics and math issues about which no one has an absolute authoritative answer),

The main function of the media is to confuse the public and mis-represent information to the public, so that only the interests of the ruling-class are considered by the public, who get their information from a privately owned media

When one considers what passes for rational dialog which is expressed through the media one sees that everything is misrepresented:
1. the right to bear arms is about “there not being standing armies,” but the discussion is instead about
2. the relation between guns and terrorism, where
3. the justice system has essentially adopted the FBI (of J E Hoover, or the KKK, or other militias, etc) viewpoint about controlling a violent sub-population, which, in turn, is to be used to terrorize the rest of the population, this is about policing and its system of: informants, provocateurs, and hidden coercive actions, all used (by the justice system) to control the public, where this is a social context of “an army (within the justice system) being controlled by the owners of society.”
3b. The point is, that if there is no way to have private communication through communication systems within the US, and if the FBI, etc, knew that these brothers (of the Boston-bombing, 4-15-13) were potential terrorists, then either the surveillance systems are useless, or this is another example of manipulation of people by the justice system, eg L H Oswald or Sirhan-Sirhan etc… hidden coercive actions….etc, so as to induce either terror into the nation, or to eliminate unwanted people. Indeed, this manipulation of individuals by the authorities is the most likely way in which this total surveillance is going to be used.
In other words, public safety is of no concern, rather this information is going to be used for the purpose of individualized public terror, which is real the intent of the justice system, since, after all, it is the justice system which has imposed wage-slavery on the public.
This pattern of legalized murder by the authorities was put in place by G Washington in regard to Shay’s rebellion (unpaid veterans acting against the banks who were oppressing the “broke” “veterans of the revolutionary war,” or J D Rockefeller murdering the miners of Ludlow CO, etc….etc…
4. Foreign relations is not about human rights, as it is portrayed on the media, rather it is about taking resources and exploiting labor, by means of violence, to maximize the profits of the ruling-banking-class
5. Science is always framed in terms of “material based science” vs. “spirit based religion” (but religion has no precise definition of spirit),
whereas religions in general always “does teach” about the idea that “people are equal” but
6. equality is never (seldom) a representation of religion within the media, rather
7. religion is represented in the media as being about the right of an authoritative, arbitrarily-moralistic, hierarchical social-club structure, which supports the interests of the ruling class, so as to dictate what “proper” behavior should be to the, so called, bewildered public,
apparently
8. so the public can cope with the oppression imposed on the public by the ruling minority, and where
9. this oppression of the public is upheld by a justice system, which oppresses and terrorizes the public,
10. eg forcing them to become wage-slaves, by laws which are based on minority rule and property rights.

11. Modern physics (2013) is about models of indefinable randomness and non-linearity, a descriptive structure which cannot possibly describe the stable properties of the fundamental systems which are observed to be so very stable, but it is a descriptive context which is related to rates of nuclear reactions.
12. Math and science are represented in the media as being about absolute dogmatic truths, which only a few are capable of attaining (or realizing), ie it is about an intellectual ruling-class (which serve the knowledge interests of the ruling class)
13. Rational thought is not about careful considerations about the limitations of (precise) language, but rather about an idea about intelligence which is related to the rate of learning in regard to the knowledge which the ruling class wants the public to possess, a step-by-step acquisition of the knowledge used by the ruling-class to create the narrow range of product upon much of their social-power rests, so as to both define an intellectual elite who represent “what would be of the greatest value” in regard to supporting the interests of the ruling-class based on a narrow definition of knowledge,
14. Science is about materialism, and materialism is most strongly identified, in the media, in regard to evolution based on mutation and survival of the fittest (where both are indefinably random constructs and essentially have no meaning) so that this biological-evolution model of materialism is interpreted to mean that people are scientifically found to be unequal, while
15. religion is supposed to be about “the creative design of the lord,” that is, religion is always portrayed in regard to arbitrary-moralizations which are handed to the sinful-public by the virtuous religious authorities, where the virtuous religious authorities include the virtuous members of the ruling class (eg Calvinism)
But, where this use of high-sounding religious language has no relation to practical creativity. But now there is a similar criticism of the language of material based science, now based on indefinable randomness and non-linearity.
16. Economics: In fact, there are players in the economic game who possess such large pockets that the economic game can be changed by their monetary actions…, who could these people be, eg the king of Saudi Arabia, the Rockefeller family, the Rothschild family (if they exist), etc… thus, quantitative measures defined for such an economic structure, eg the value of dollars, have no validity in a quantitative model, ie the economy is not relatable to a valid a measurable-system model, it is an arbitrary system governed by the “owners of society” (though the social structure of money does have a large affect on the behaviors of the public). In a society where value is arbitrary (and controlled by the owners of society by means of money and propaganda) but the actions of the people within the society are essentially all controlled by money (where the value of money is forced to have value, due to the coercive actions of the justice system against the public, eg do not steal bread from the oligarchs) then market values are either controlled, or if temporarily not controlled, then these market-values only define an indefinably random quantitative context so that attributing patterns by math processes to such a (quantitative) context will not be valid, ie quantitatively inconsistent. [thus, the failures of models of risk provided by MIT math-physics PhD’s working for the banks] That is, if certain flows are identified as crucial then the whole monetary enterprise could be pinched-off {the hundreds of trillions of dollars in hedge-funds confiscated}, only allowing the crucial monetary flows, and new structure of law-governing-market’s put into place, such as a continental congress with law based on equality and a government by the people “promoting the common welfare” for the public (so as to sort-out equality, where survival, and an access to a creative context, must be a right) where the point of individual freedom within society is to be a society of equal-creators, so as to form a truly free-market, (ie advertising is simply listing a products attributes [or properties] and its social context, or use in society) as opposed to a centrally controlled, and narrowly defined system, which is irrationally directed to the destruction of the earth, which the owners of society are determining (directing), and where the government serves these few owners, since law is now based on minority rule and property rights and violent domination.
17. There are the intellectuals vs. the violent types “where the violent types are those who know how to use terror to dominate others.” This was also the basis of Roman power, we are still only an extension of the Roman civilization.
The intellectuals are supposed to stand for creativity, but in fact they stand for traditional authoritative beliefs (since there is no advantage for an intellectual to believe in particle-physics or general relativity or any of the other physical theories which are derived from these (math) constructs (eg string theory) [unless they are getting paid for their beliefs], since these theories have no relation to practical creativity, and their authority should be challenged, while 21st century technology (now, in 2013) all depends on the knowledge base of 19th century physics, even micro-chips).
While the violent types are controlled and manipulated by others of their ilk (essentially, they exist within an army), but the violent types are supposed to stand for traditions and authority, but they are really about domination and terror and destruction.
Thus, there is the well-paid stand-still intellectuals [who believe in arbitrary authority], and the terrorist enforcers of arbitrary authority, which together chart a course for world destruction [both sides guided by the owners of society, ie the very big economic players], ie eliminating the earth-nourisher of all of life, so as to maintain a social position of domination, which belongs to today’s owners of society, ie the inheritors of the power of the Roman emperors of the western culture
18. What are women? They either try to separate themselves for protection and/or they seek dominant social positions for themselves, or they are, essentially, prostitutes who are to be controlled by (violent) domination, subsequently they tend to support the, so called, winners within the narrow competitive society.
In a matrilineal society the woman more easily becomes the person who nourishes life, winners and losers, ie allowing a wider-range of viewpoints.
19. A precisely described truth, concerning observed and measurable physical patterns, must be both accurate, so as to be of sufficient precision, and it needs to be relatable to practical creativity, especially, if the systems it is describing are uniformly stable, where such a property implies both linearity and controllability, in regard to the physical system‘s properties. Thus, in regard to both particle-physics as well as general relativity, if such knowledge is not relatable to practical creativity….. ….. then it is a descriptive language without any definitive meaning, and “at best” it is about speculation on a sea of confusion, without providing any guidance. This is true even if particle-physics might be based on the actual patterns by which unstable particle-components (made form high-energy particle-collisions) decay in 3-space.
Languages which are unrelated to practical creativity are languages which are equivalent to the language of religion, which is also without any relation to practical creativity, but rather it (both religion and modern science) is only relatable to social manipulations, in a delusional context of rationalism.
So science, which is associated to particle-physics and general relativity and all the other theories which are derived from these two theories, eg string-theory, are not a valid part of science but rather share the arbitrary moralistic authority of a religion.
Thus science…, by following particle-physics and general relativity and the other derived theories, it
…, becomes an arbitrary, speculative, but nonetheless authoritative and dogmatic institution represented in the media as an institution which is espousing an absolute authoritative truth, which can only be understood by the few superior intellects of the world. (Superior intellects which modern psychology has been able to uncover). This is all a bunch of rubbish.
Thus material based science which is defined by “survival of the fittest”-based-evolution, and by its representation as being the set of superior intellects of the world, has come to represent inequality (but science emerges from an equal voice which challenges authority), the very thing for which the emperor’s religion, eg the Roman-Catholic-church, has been used within the (Roman) empire, and this dys-functional-ness which is called superior intellectual capacity has very effectively been used to eliminate equal free-inquiry which is about the relation of knowledge to practical creativity. This is done by requiring that editors only allow inquiry to be voiced by the authoritative set of experts, ie the superior intellects (ie people worship the indefinable notion of intelligence, or IQ, so as to make it appear measurable)
It is in this context that the arrogant editors…, who apparently believe that they are protecting the public from dis-information which does not emanate from the mouths of the intellectually superior class of professional scientists…., are, in effect, opposing equal free-inquiry, so as to protect the intellectually superior people of the world, but more to the point, they are excluding any practical creativity which might come from equal free-inquiry, and this means less competition for the ruling-class, which has a monopoly over knowledge, and how it is used in a creative context within society (this control is based on investment and salary, where wage-slavery is coercively imposed on the public).

Etc.

Is meaning in language essentially about the relation of language to practical creativity? {Yes}
Thus, arbitrary (moralistic, or based on indefinable randomness) pronouncements have no meaning, and their emotional value (morals associated with spirit, and indefinable randomness associated with the society’s elite intellectuals) is used to manipulate the public by means of the propaganda system, where the propaganda system is the sole voice of absolute authority within society, ie the voice of the ruling minority.

Social conditions, and its relation to language

1. Those who support equality, and freedom based foremost on equality, tend to believe that the main characteristic of people is that they want to be creative and productive. The value which is defined by such a culture, centered on knowledge and creativity, is the value of the culture’s capability to create (creative range and its useful applicability),
and
social-value is not based on either: property, money, or shiny-rare-metals (which now identify a commodity market, for currencies whose values float, and thus their values are upheld by extreme violence) {the economic-military take-over of the world by the US is based on violence being used to maintain the value of the dollar}
2. Those who support tradition and authority tend to believe that people are characterized by their “badness.” (eg T Hobbes) But this badness is really a circular construct of a hierarchical system, where the ruling-class instill the values of the ruling class upon the public ie thus it is assumed that the ruling-class are superior in intellect and in virtue, and thus the ruling-class has the right to steal and to uphold their theft by violence, (since the implication is that the ruling-class will do the smartest and most virtuous things for society) and then the ruling-class has the right to exploit and attack the lower social classes, so that the lower classes are, by definition, bad, in an authoritarian and hierarchical society. Thus, many in the lower-social-classes act as if they are mirror-images of the ruling few, ie violent self-righteous thieves, and of course, these are considered to be the worst people.
3. Those who only support freedom, apparently often also believe in the biology ideas which are based on “survival of the fittest,” which implies a natural hierarchy, and their definition of freedom is most often about the freedom of superior people to exploit inferior people.
If they believe that “freedom must be based on equality” then they belong to group 1.

Note: The new ideas about math and science provide a new context for science, which is not based on materialism (though the material world is a proper subset), and thus the development of life as well as “what life is?” have a new context within which the living systems are contained, and that new context is mathematically based, ie it is a measurable description, whose descriptions can be tested by reliable measuring. But the idea of “survival of the fittest” (as well as the idea of life being solely based on DNA) is not the best description for the (existence and) development of life. However, the new descriptive context is also concerned about the molecular function of DNA within living systems, and the molecular actions of DNA, in the living system, are also of interest in the new descriptive structure, but now they can be linked to a macroscopic higher-dimensional system, which is linked by containment and by angular momentum. But, if one’s attention is only on material (molecular and condensed) which is contained in 3-space, then the interaction properties of these material entities will stay in 3-space.
In fact, in regard to life’s development, it might be the capacity of a living system to be creative which might be the property which is determining the development of life, yet that creativity might not be creativity in the direct context of the material world, since the material world is a proper subset of the new (mathematical) context for existence.

That is, both science and religion have new contexts in this new math construct of material and its containment space where the new math focus is on stability of patterns (so that language has meaning) and the idea of materialism is a proper subset of the new ideas, where classical physics is consistent with the new math structures but instead of reduction of material to random quantum the math operators become discrete and the underlying context is (are) the stable math patterns of existence.


Free speech is about:
1. One’s beliefs about the nature of people and how this is related to how one believes society should be organized, how society’s laws should be structured, so that “what one wants from society” will be consistent with “what one considers to be” the nature of people.
2. One’s beliefs about the nature of “all of existence” and the relation that this has to practical creativity.
Practical creativity is about observing the patterns of nature which exist, and it is about measuring, and the containment of a measurable descriptive language to be used for describing various types of systems (or patterns) which exist, so that the (reliably measurable) properties of a system can be used in a practical manner. But, this does not necessarily mean the idea of materialism.
This is about: assumptions, contexts, interpretations, containment, definitions, quantities, variables, formulas, equations, shapes, and the stability of (math) patterns, which are used, or organized, in various ways to form a (new) measurable descriptive language, by those interested in both description and the relation of a reliably measurable description to creativity, ie using the properties which exist, and are controllable, in order to create new things…, which are to be selflessly given to society as gifts.
Using or developing language at this elementary level of assumption etc can be easily related to the development of practically creative designs. For example, Faraday developed electric motors, and circuits, and circuit components, at this elementary level of a descriptive language, but do not be fooled, it was the correct mathematical context. Faraday and Tesla essentially ushered-in electronic technology.
This is the social context in which we are all equal creators.



No comment to those whose minds which have been destroyed by the propaganda system.

This work is in the public domain