Follow by Email

Saturday, January 22, 2011

34 - a tribute to our chauvinists

Dear Reader,

I feel that what's long overdue is some tribute to the masculine flavour of this 'club science'. It's an 'old school' requirement that women's role in any such field of endeavour is relegated to 'second place'. With good reason. We all know that women are not inclined to logic, reason, critical observation, good sense, or indeed, any kind of worthwhile contribution outside our roles as housewife. We're the illogical half of the human equation. And man is its logical half. His is the muscle and brain. Our's is a secondary role of meek acceptance and deference and quiet compliance.

That's why, for instance, when a woman discovers anything at all men, all men, any men, can assume the right to appropriate ownership of that discovery. Or ignore that it was ever discovered. Or both. That's why if she presumes to explain the thinking behind the discovery - that explanation can be entirely dismissed. That's also the reason that when a women points out some critical error in a man's thinking that - correctly - those points are dismissed out of hand - with the appropriate accusation of 'how crass is such a thought' - or words to that effect.

Let me give some examples of this excellent code of practice as it applies to general forum discussion. MileHigh - an engaging personality on Poynty's forum - will argue - at length - on the fact that particles are subject to the Laws of Gravity. And he will apply techniques of 'scoff and scorn' if a woman dares question this. And why not? All men, everywhere, will see the sense of it. That's also why - notwithstanding the evidence - Humbugger (TK's new (and much needed) forum identity) can advise all and sundry that we may ignore the effect of a junction on a 'line' when making a voltage measurement. If a woman references the need for an integrated rather than an averaged power analysis - it is 'gobbledygook' and redundant. If a woman points out inconsistencies in test parameters - it's to be ignored and set aside. No MAN will come to the defense of her observation. Indeed not. It is excessively presumptuous to question any man - ever - on any point. Unless, of course, one is first a MAN.

Commendable indeed Gentlemen. Really commendable. I am personally looking forward to the much needed acknowledgement of some measure of over unity. And I agree. It is ONLY to be accepted if the claimant is of the right gender. Else what good is there of this elite 'gentleman's club'. No good at all. You do right by ignoring the manifold evidence from published papers and the rest. Deny them. On whatever grounds you can fabricate. There is no worse sin than for a mere female to ever say anthing at all - unless of course it's related to the good and orderly running of the household.

Meanwhile - I also thoroughly endorse your general desire to diminish and belittle any efforts by us poor presumptuous females. We have no right to upturn anything at all - let alone the foundations of physics. And certainly we have no right to find any answers - no matter how simple. In fact - least of all - if they're simple. Science involves matters of grave and earnest consideration. I get it we must not burden our little heads with anything short of observations about butterflies - or bread making - or children.

So. Indeed. Roll on another huge chapter of our history - to be dominated by this impeccable reach at masculine authority. We don't have to look far to find how effective is the 'alpha male' syndrome. It's taken the gorilla to where he is today. It's surely got to be commendable.

Rosemary

33 - in general and in particular

Dear Reader,

We've officially just slipped over to the other side of our summer equinox. The good news is that there seems to be an ever increasing interest in the Lawrence Tseung's device and appropriate reference being made to similar claims elsewhere. Clearly those paradigms are shifting along with our seasons. And by the looks of it - somewhat more rapidly.

Not such good news is Lawrence Tseung's thread where he's established a 'teaching' monologue to explain the phenomenon of Over Unity. My advice to him would be to desist. His device is deserving of every respect. His thesis is not. He assures us that God Himself has endorsed his thinking - and I'm a little concerned that God should, perhaps, put that in writing. He took the trouble to do so when he instructed Moses. And anything short of God's signature blessing - will incline me to doubt any such claim. Surely - at this late stage of our history we should give some due respect to God's gift to us of the faculty of reasoning. Unless the general evolutionary requirement is that our brains are redundant and and needs must grow small again. I for one would be sorry.

The simple truth is that our scientists - our Greats - have actually unravelled all that ever needs to be unravelled. That's where the true genius lies. What transpired from their 'unravelling' was unfortunately corrupted by 'assumption' and it's the errors of assumption that need to be addressed. The acid test of any scientific claim is in its experimental evidence. And when scientists deny the right to show proof - or where the deny the opportunity to even consider alternate opinion - then science itself will be corrupted by bigotry and belief. Then indeed we can deny any need for any critical faculties whatsoever. No need for any further questions. Just a simple 'Then make it so' to paraphase an esteemed Captain in his search for those far frontiers.

The fact is that Inductive Laws are well known and very well applied. There is no Law of Stored energy which, somehow, has been required to supplant our pristine Inductive Laws. What our alternative experimentalists are showing - all over the place - is precisely the fact that the Law is indeed a Law - to be universally applied. Then too Einstein's equivalence is required. There is indeed energy trapped in matter. And inductive and conductive material can release their inductive and/or conductive potentials to become an electric supply source - all on their own. Then - as a tribute to our astrophysicists - there is all that energy around. Everywhere. Even in all visible matter. And even in non-visible matter. In the vacuum itself. Then as tribute to our String theorists - there is indeed the proof of those multiple dimensions and a potential structuring of the vacuum where all this energy seems to reside. And on and on. Our scientists are right. In general and in particular. And we'd be rather foolish to question all the evidence that was required to forge our technological progress to where it is today.

But with one small caveat. Our scientists are NOT God - any more than Lawrence Tseung is God or even God's representative spokesperson. And it would be foolhardy to propose that they are right in EVERY particular. I think there is still some onus of responsibility on us all to keep our questions alive. Because without questions - then where are we? We're presuming that we're God - knowing everything - or denying that there is more to be learned. God forbid. And dare I say it? It seems that our Thermodynamic Laws are due to be revised. That's a good thing.

Rosemary