Re: Enouragment of Ceative Thinking - was ( Experimental Help - Terry?)

["Tesla list" <tesla-at-pupman-dot-com>]

Original poster: "William R. Langston by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>" <blangsto-at-iwvisp-dot-com>

Terry, folks, 

I will not be upset if this does not get posted to the list. Perhaps it just
gives me an opportunity to "vent" a bit*. But more than that, I hope it will
encourage young thinkers to go on thinking no matter what criticism we older
guys belch toward them. I hope they will take our thoughts and criticisms into
considerations, but not let our perspective become their perspective without
very good reasons for allowing it to happen. 

I've been busy and utterly on the go until recently, since, and in large part
because of, the Sept. 11 attack. Therefore much of the discussion on the list
I'm still trying to chase down and catch up on must have had roots in a
beginning I missed, interesting though some of it is. I have a request and a
comment. Request first: 

There was a fellow who was selling tungsten broken to gap electrode size. My
computer died while I have been on travel and I lost his email address months
ago. I think his first name was Jeff. Does anyone know if he is around and
still has some to sell? Thanks. 

Now, on to the soap-box: 
Let me set  the stage by saying I am educated in the sciences and in liberal
arts. I am unashamedly a Christian -- and not for religious reasons, but
because of my engineering and scientific background coupled with some powerful
VietNam experiences. The reason I include that last is that it touches all that
I am and do, since I view the universe as a field governed by uniformity of
natural causes, in an open system (as opposed to a closed one). For those who
may not have considered the impact of such a thing, that leaves room for
"surprises" and the "unexplainable" in my universe; and in my lifetime to date
I've certainly run into both.
I do not "believe" in free energy (though I would not mind being wrong on that
count). I do not believe in any form of something-for-nothing reality. 
By and large, given responsibility for getting something found or done, I
believe in the efficiency of starting with "established" observations and
descriptions and then getting cautiously creative. But, I would limit that to
the following considerations:  If time, resources, and making progress allow,
do it the tried and true way, other wise... get it done or prove you are not
going to be able to do it. Approaching things that manner, I have helped teams
make a lot of money and solve some "it can't be done" problems for folks I've
contracted to. 

In my experience, as a general rule at the modern level of scientific
understanding, technology is enhanced by creatively "following the books," but
true creativity manifests in embracing the improbable or unlikely and making
disciplined, educated leaps of mind, then, once there on the lip of some new
concept, settling down to tried and true techniques of validation. Sorry if
that sound like mysticism, but it works in the places I've be fortunate enough
to find myself. 

My son, his wife, and I all are making, or have made our living in research
physics and/or engineering. I taught it for some time years ago with emphasis
on reactor kinetics and physics. My son and his wife, the generation to whom my
generation are "fossils," are on the right-now cutting edge of current
development of HE imaging, targeting, and make-the-target-go-"away"-now
equipment. I have the pleasure of working with them occasionally, and I get to
think with him a great deal. The point is that we are quite in touch with folks
who are not sitting in comfortable offices taking shots at cutting edge work.
People who are not growing old in their minds by discussing how "it" was done,
or why it cannot be done. Rather, we know many people who, privately, are
trying to find how "it" can be done or should have been done. And the "it" upon
which physics is applicable encompasses a very vast array of issues and
subjects indeed, far and away more than most allow themselves to be comfortable
with discussing. 

In private, and, in my opinion, that prepositional phrase is key to the
discussion here, I have talked with people considering ways of using, and have
watched very big-dollar work being done on, concepts and possibilities that
would have gotten anyone burned at the stake in earlier centuries (and set the
grant sharks and thought police loose on them in nearly any university lab in
the nation today that was not taking money for black projects). I suppose I
might have even spent a kopyejka [kopeck] or several on the occasional scheme I
would not like my neighbors to find out about, or to see published one
split-second too soon myself ;-) 

The salient point is that in the real world, in order to even begin to describe
the natural order we so carefully observe and defend, we have had to "assume"
so many things, to "boundary" the problem(s) to the point of simplistic
retardation just to start to touch it with our math. The real-world complexity
of the universe (just as much on "simple," "well known" matters as on how to
reach the stars in one lifetime) so often defies pin-point description and
spot-on modeling. Much of our defense of the established laws is little more
than our whistling in the dark and telling ourselves there are no scary
fractal-concepts (dynamic, non-linear systems) out there for us to stumble
into. 

Any way, to encourage freedom of discussion and to encourage the wild young
bucks among us, I personally have talked with some of the people who lie behind
several "impossible" items that saw very functional use in Desert Storm and
more recent places, not in polished, finished, every "i" dotted and "t" crossed
ways; but rather, as "They need __________ and they need it now. I don't care
if you can't explain it yet, what we need to know is how fast can you get one
working?" projects. 

As evidence that I know a little what I'm saying here, I'll include this part
of some of the discussions, perhaps some will recognize similar back-room or
hall way discussions, "By the way, use your own budget... get the money
somewhere; hey, see if you can get engineering to back it... you know we've all
got to find our own money." Anyone doing present day work in research that is
not in stasis (economic, conceptual, or political correctness lock-down) will
recognize the reality of what I just wrote about the money hunt. You might even
be able to tell, in general, what big "organization" I'm talking about that is
paying the bill on some very cutting edge research. Research that, apparently,
if some writing to this list had their way, would never have even been
mentioned out loud let alone funded. 

Laugh if you must, but I have personally sat in on discussion about the actual
degree of application and the actual field of coverage of Maxwell's work. I
have personally sat in on discussions, recent discussions, about official ways
to re-test to see if something, that earlier thinkers called "aether," can be
USED, even if not explained or demonstrated with repeatability (since some
media "must" exist to explain _______ (our observed test results). And there is
quite a body of work being done that deals with math that suggests the
existence of propagation media, and other "science fiction" concepts, that most
all of us were taught do not exist. No proof yet, just "everyone knows
something has to be there, let's see if we can use it before the guys in
engineering and the bean-counters can bottle it"
experiementation-toward-the-practical kind of work. 

Ok, off the box. I just get tired of hearing, year after year, actually decade
after decade, the guys who limit the avenues toward creativity down which young
minds want to look. They always seem to set the limits to match their own
understanding or dyspeptic attitudes. I really think it is important to keep in
mind that there was no "physics" as a body of knowledge to study until someone
either did or observed something happening that was off the scale of known
observations, and interesting enough to catch their attention in the first
place and then set out to try to explain it.  And, unless I am sadly mistaken,
that is the exact recipe for both scientific research and mystical nonsense;
throw it out and we do not loose just the mystical foolishness. Actually, I
think we loose the true scientific research, the mystical foolishness seems
quite up to dealing with any crusty old curmudgeon's criticism. 

We live in a wonderful day of potential discovery, why fossilize our minds and
spirits now? Why try to discourage the younger minds and risk making them stop
now? This is the time for guided understanding and toleration, for earning
their respect and then being a tail to their kite, not an anchor. 

Good day all, 
Bill L. 
  

*you picked a good day when we need a post to test the server ;-)  - T.

Tesla list wrote: 
>
> Original poster: "Paul Nicholson by way of Terry Fritz <twftesla-at-qwest-dot-net>"
> <paul-at-abelian.demon.co.uk> 
>
> Hi Terry, 
>
> > I think there is some concern that because there is an equation 
> > that explains something, that the equation is not "proof" of 
> > underlying principles. 
>
> Yes, I see what you mean.  It is sufficient for our purposes to take 
> it this way:  we use Curl H = J + dD/dt because it describes nature, 
> whereas Curl H = J doesn't.  There are deeper reasons as you'd expect, 
> and there are plenty of mature textbooks on the subject. 
>
> But of course, folk are free to believe that Curl H = J, just as they 
> may believe in a flat earth, it's just a pity they can't go somewhere 
> else.   They are kept out of other moderated lists, why does this one 
> have to deal with them?

<snip>