Kevin,

 Actually I don't take so much a "position", as to take up the best model I can find for the phenomena being studied.  One of the real problems is that folks tend to "lock into" a model as "right or wrong".  That's not the way it is.  A model is either useful or not useful, to varying degrees.  There is no such thing as a perfect model, and never will be (Godel's theorem).

 Anyway, not only is time important, but it can be engineered directly.  But not in classical electrodynamics or orthodox electrical engineering.  Indeed, all EM energy in 3-space comes from the time domain, as fundamentally shown by Whittaker in 1903, once one reinterprets correctly the phase conjugate portion of his fundamental biwave.  That turns out to be the solution to the long vexing "source charge" problem. Time, it turns out, has the same energy density as mass.

 There are at least four major models, e.g., for the photon.  It is not a matter of which is "right" or "wrong", but where one applies and the others doesn't, then another, etc.  So the physicists just use the one that works, and quit worrying about it.

 The problem is that "either-or" thinking (Aristotelian logic) also is seriously flawed, and is incapable of answering any ultimate question.  There are much better systems of logic available.

 Anyway, what one has to do is let the experiments tell him which model or "view' is good enough to describe the experimental phenomena sufficiently to make predictions, and have an "engineering" model.  That one, one develops a technology.  Never mind whether it is a wave or a particle (that either-or trap again); just use whichever one works and fits the experiment.

 If we do not use that approach, then we practice dogma because we lock in on a particular model and then fight all others.  That is not a scientific view.  It's a dogmatic view.

 As to big bangs or whimpers, etc., use whatever works in a given case, and fits the phenomenology.  Regardless, none of the models answers the question, well, before there was a physical universe, and there was no energy or time or mass, WHAT WAS THERE?  How can something even be if it is not "being" or "persisting" in time?  What does "being" mean, when there is no time in which to be being?  And so on.  Aristotelian logic can never get one out of such morasses.

 So I'm not worried so much about what someone believes, as long as he  is not engaging in ad hominem attacks etc.  Every model is useful, in its own domain.  Outside its domain, we need a different model.

 The other thing is to realize that thought itself is a functional model.  So this makes one confront the bane of the philosophers: the difference between something that is thought (or observed, or perceived, whatever as the output or characteristic of some operation) and the notion of the "thing in itself, whether or not thought or perceived, etc.).

 None of the philosophical schools ever solved any of that, including any fundamental problem (nature of mind, nature of being, nature of time, etc.)  Instead, they split into schools where each school had a "position" and a very clever way of "stating" their position and "conclusion".  Then they argued like the dickens or had cur dog fights. All really about who was going to be the big monkey.

 Much of science today is conducted the same way, with many "defenders of the faith" (lots of different kinds of faith).  Consequently, it turns ever more into a cur dog fight.

 So use whatever model is convenient and fits the experiments, and allows one to design and apply a technology.  If it doesn't do that, it's still an hypothesis only.

 Anyway, that is the view I take.  And one thing more:  If the experiments start to refute the model, we are supposed to realize we have hit the limits of that model, and either extend the model or change it to a better one that does fit.  At least for that purpose.

 Cheers,

Tom Bearden

---

 
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 00:37:59 +0100

Hi Tom,
 
I was wondering which position you take as I read in your correspondence a few times the problem with the "hidden order" which must be there or else quantum mechanics is wrong. Maybe you know Paul Marmet. He is quite sure that QM is wrong (he says that the mathematical quotations are right but the interpretation wrong) and that Einstein's relativity is completely useless.
His website:
www.newtonphysics.on.ca/index.html
 
I rather keep myself neutral (I am just a student in archaeology with interest for physics).
But I was thinking of what the famous scientists Bohm said. His statement is that order can so high that it looks random to us. Some kind of a hidden order. Maybe we cannot detect any order in the world of the subatomic particles because it is beyond our ability.
 
I also read that you talked about time in an email concerning materialism (and metaphysics). Do you really think that time is a physical phenomenon? I read a few months ago about a meeting between physicians and philosophers concerning some problems in their mathematics (of the physicians of course). The problem is that they don't know anymore what time, space and motion are in their maths. Some of them concluded that Time might not be so important after all.
 
Someone who has done some considerable work on this subject is Julian Barbour. He recently published his research for laymen in a book named "The end of time". website at www.platonia.com/
 
Paul Marmet has done some interesting research concerning time also. Although he believes time exists, he says Einstein was completely wrong in believing that time can go faster or slower. The problem is that Einstein (and many others still today) really believe that a clock actually measures time, which is of course not true. Marmet has written a paper which explains that the rate of, let us say an atomic clock, becomes higher at high speed because of the increase in kinetic energy.
can't find the place where he talks about time right now, but here's the link where he talks about length contraction as a normal physical occurrence explained with Newtonian physics: Natural Length Contraction Mechanism Due to Kinetic Energy
 
Lastly, I was wondering which position you talk in regard to the Big bang theory. The thing which I noticed is that a considerable number of sensible people (scientists) are not buying it and that should make one doubt on the truthfulness of the theory.
this one is interesting:
www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bigbang.html
 
Very lastly, I read in a mail of yours considering the question of someone why there is no funding for any Free Energy project, that you believe we will face an nuclear holocaust if things will not change rapidly. I totally agree with you. Most people are quite funny. You hear them say that we still haven't any credible replacement for conventional energy resources. For god sake, we live in a sea of infinite energy (zero point energy)! (possibly the Brahm element of which Hindus speak or the Nirvana from Buddhists). We know how to "tap" it. But you are certainly not alone in your quest for changing people's ideas and introduce free energy to the world for daily use. I know for example Tim Harwood who is know very busy with the Adams motor. You can visit (or contact him) his site at www.geocities.com/theadamsmotor. He strongly believes we need to destroy materialism.
 
 cheers,
 
Kevin.