Re: [LAD] Audio Levitation

Le Mon, 6 Jan 2014 20:11:13 -0500,
Paul Davis <paul@email-addr-hidden> a écrit :

> On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons@email-addr-hidden>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 07, 2014 at 12:32:02AM +0100, Dominique Michel wrote:
> >
> > > ... mainstream physics doesn't validate Evans' theory (as it
> > > didn't validated Galileo's theory at his time)
> >
> > That is one of the most intellectually dishonest analogies I've
> > seen so far. Galileo's theories were not rejected by fellow
> > scientist - those who repeated his observations tended to agree.
> > He was silenced because he undermined the teachings of the
> > Catholic Church.
> >
> > No such thing happened to Evans. His theories were discredited
> > because his argumentation contained mathematical errors. These
> > have been published and can be verified by everyone who cares.
> >
>
> specifically:
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607186
>
> "Correcting a former proof of M.W. Evans it is shown that his O(3)
> hypothesis is not Lorentz invariant and hence no law of Physics. "
>
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008AcPPB..39...51B
>
> "We comment on the recent article of M.W. Evans, "Spin Connection
> Resonance in Gravitational General Relativity", Acta Phys. Pol. B
> {38}, 2211 (2007). We point out that the equations underlying Evans'
> theory are highly problematic. Moreover, we demonstrate that the
> so-called ``spin connection resonance'', predicted by Evans, cannot
> be derived from the equation he used. We provide an exact solution of
> Evans' corresponding equation and show that it has definitely no
> resonance solutions."
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0411085

I know these papers, they are just a part of the story. Evans and other
scientists refuted them all. We can find them in the rebuttals section
of http://www.atomicprecision.com/Community/content.html

>
> Compare and contrast for interesting sociological effect, if you
> will, to the treatment received by Galileo.

Evans was not killed, I know that. On the other hand, the UN said it
is more than enough food on earth for every one, and that 35 millions of
peoples are staving to death each single year. It's a sociological
effect which have one single reason, these peoples are to poor to buy
the food that exist for them on the markets. It is called capitalism. I
don't think either that communism is better. They are just 2 sides of
the same reality. But from a few decades ago, capitalism is the only one
left, so we cannot blame others any longer for the total failure of
capitalism to archive peace and prosperity for every one on earth.

The root of the problem is respect, and as we don't respect Nature, we
don't respect each others. Capitalism exploit Nature for profit,
Communism exploit Nature for the sole satisfaction of Humanity. In both
cases this is the same egoistic bullshit where the satisfaction of
Nature is just not taken in account. Communism is right on one thing:
the economy must be just a tool, and for that, it have to be
subordinated to the goal. But as our relationship with Nature is what
affects the whole ontology of our society (among others, see Philippe
Descola on this), economy must be subordinated not only to the
satisfaction of every body's needs, but also to the satisfaction of the
needs of Nature. In other words, a society based on the exploitation of
Nature can and will generate a society of exploitation of each others.
In our case, that exploitation is industrialised at all levels, and NSA
is just a step further to total exploitation of humanity. So Houston, we
have a big problem here. And to know if Evans is right or wrong is
totally secondary.

Dominique
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Tue Jan 7 12:15:01 2014