Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Eddington was not Wrong nor Lucky he was Established

Eddington was not Wrong nor Lucky he was Established


This is from the reference frame today- and I take issue with Lubos on Eddington here.
New Scientist today also points out the danger of relying on a scientific theory (that is M-theory and Hawking's conclusion on spiritual matters we usually feel outside of current science if not always so)

BTW Ulla, sometimes answers can be found that are simple- thus a simple cure as in the cause of ulcers by bacteria (as in bad breath) thus antibiotic treatment- not some vague higher order idea of stress and that assumed wrong.

Eddington was right and as he said his ideas were no more bizzare than Diracs. His quantum relativity of 1929 settled the case on the level of the importance of that theory. We need no so much crackpot indexes as their own anti-particles but a deep understanding of "fundamental theory" where there are those in the know and those hidden in dimensions for who is crackpot and who is not. But for those who claim outlandish things as if science can make judgement on God or the supernatural or dismiss the science if say Eddington dabbled in some spiritual pursuits- well, His theory was one of the first string theories as a theory of everything and his issues relavant to this day. How many on the sciencechatblogs dismissed me for even mentioning the I Ching when since the 1600's Liebnitz pointed out its binary utility which of course was the beginning of information theory as you are now observing and using it for computers?

Of course Eddington was from a simpler era and he helped with the ideas of Einstein (who in my opinnion if we called someone a crackpot doing research and living on his first reputation it would be Hawking and not Einstein on this idea of Unified theory.) Deconstructing words and markers as this cited article does may be reductionist but it is not science. But Einstein is from a bygone era too and his "ignoble prize" after all gave status to the prize did it not? Have any of you Einstein's seen the last equations on his death bed? Let us get beyond the social propaganda of over-influence of Jewish ways of seeing physics in some sort of Napoleon effect- save that to inspire youth at temple but not to do physics without objective depth accross all cultures.

btw Lubos, Rush Limbaugh would not make a pimple on the butt of some of the more influential conservatives in the popular media and on the short-waves. He is a low level joke on the substance and importance of such politics. That the crackpottery of the climate issue is so confused by what is true is demeaning to the very idea of an objective science and its utility. Politics is not as deep as philosophy, nor is someones extreme view, left or right, of a philosophy of science.


  1. I saw this one.
    Why do bacterias attack?
    Why do they succeed and can go forward incubating diseace?

    Because the body is not well. It is stressed.

    Stress is also one of these things so badly understood. It is very much about the autonomous nerve system. In fact, everything that interfere with you. The neutralization is called homeostasis.

  2. Ulla,
    I just noticed your comment here.

    Well, that is a general and basic question. I have heard we tend to get eaten from the outside and the inside.

    I guess stress can be as much a psychological thing or a state of mind as much as the interplay of the hormones.

    In general, in this molecular war of stealth, it is a very fine line between instructions and even methods for defeating instruction as to if a cell replicates or self-destructs. And there is no doubt the body can over-react, inflammation and all.

    But two things strike me: That it takes a certain number of them to act at a threshold in unison, so many to light up say on the beach.

    And that we encode for only so many of them that we encounter while the mechanism is partly free to try new combination's as it is hardly possible to encode for every possibility of attacking substances that may invade us.

    Recently it is clear that the overall shape of a school of creatures (that is those that herd more than three) has geometric reasons for the shape quite besides that they assume shapes as if a unit seemingly faster than they can communicate together. The density of the swarm adapts to say the temperature of the sea water.

    It is also clear that the mechanism of the flagellum can turn two ways- one that senses something it needs or wants to escape from in a direct line- but the other direction of spin is such that it makes random jerky motions in random directions to improve its chances to find something or escape.

    Certainly the fact a falcon has talons says something about it behavior that it will not seek the nectar's of flowers like the humming bird.

  3. But certainly our first line of defense is our bodies and unity of it. Yet it is only as good as our initial stem cell encoding- and beyond that what our inheritance is made of from what we find or lack in the local cosmic environs.

    As I said on facebook today:
    The abstract space where we imagine the what-if's of life in our dreams is so much wider than the dreams of what-ifs of our lives.

    But even the identical make up of say the hansa virus may be virulent or it may not be- why?