| Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004
07:58:56 -0600
Dear Adam,
Basically the light that
reaches our eyes (or telescopes) has a unique characteristic: In other
than highly nonlinear situations, light waves will pass right through
other light waves without distortion or interaction.
When the situation is
highly nonlinear, light waves do interact with each other, as governed
by the rules ("laws") of nonlinear optics.
Fortunately, in empty
space the nonlinearity of the fluctuations "averages out to zero" on
the whole. So a great percent of those "light interactions" in space
average out (macroscopically) to zero. That means that the original
"information" can and does get through to us.
The part that does not
average out to zero on the initiating (transmitting) end gives us the
ability to "see" the distant objects, their structures and
characteristics. I.e., it is precisely those "nonzeroing interactions"
that lets us observe "objects and entities" and their characteristics.
The part that does average
out to zero along the way through the "transmitting medium" gives us
the ability to still have good representations of those distant "nonzeroed"
light entities that were originally transmitted.
Thus, by using both
opposites (light interacts with light in certain cases, and in others
does not interact with light), we are able to deeply observe our
universe around us.
In nature, usually for a
fundamental question with opposite answers, both opposites will apply
sooner or later. Nature has a nice little habit of "not leaving
anything out" and not forgetting anything. The reason we do not
normally understand this "accursed necessity for the identity of
opposites" (as the frustrated Aristotelian-logic philosophers referred
to it) is that it is due to a flaw in the Aristotelian logic we are
all taught. The logic is taught as "absolute", which nothing is.
When perception or observation are added in as requirements, then five
laws of logic are necessary rather than Aristotle's three. As an
example, the statement that "A is not identical to not-A" assumes
absolute knowledge (absolute observation), which does not exist. When
observation or perception is inserted, the statement becomes "what is
perceived as A and what is then perceived as not-A follows only after
the two successive perceptions are compared, and difference is
perceived. If the perceiving function or system is altered so that it
is unable to distinguish the difference, then to that perceptual
operation the former "A" is now perceived as identical to the
succeeding former "not-A". That is, to two different observers, the
same phenomena can be observed quite differently. Relativity, e.g.,
deals with this specifically: Observer A can see two entities as
precisely the same, but observer B can see them differently; in fact,
to observer B, one of the entities may not even have been born yet,
and thus may not "observably exist". To really understand logic and
what it's all about, one needs to read Morris Kline, Mathematics:
Loss of Certainty. A serious reading of that book will forever
alter one's notions of logic and physical reality (and whether or not
mathematics is "ultimate truth" as so many mathematicians like to
believe, or whether it is just a very good model and clever, useful
game. Indeed, as foundations physicists such as Feynman have strongly
pointed out, the physics of a situation is not in the mathematics at
all, but rather is in the concepts and principles being manipulated by
the mathematics.
Anyway, because of
considerations such as the foregoing, we can indeed observe deeply
into our universe, which means observing light that has traveled
relatively unchanged for many billions of years. So we depend on the
fact that nonlinear reaction does occur, to even "see" objects in the
first place. However, we also depend on the fact that most of the
nonlinear interactions thereafter "average out to zero in the
macroscopic realm" so that we can thus receive the information from a
vast difference, as in empty space. The tiny part that still does not
average out to zero also tells us information about what happened
along the way, such as the light passing through a "gravitational
lens" enroute. With such lenses in the sky, we can "take a picture"
of a single object seemingly in two different positions at once, e.g.,
as seen by light passing through the lens and as by light not passing
through the lens. But then that comparison itself reveals the
gravitational lens, which gives us even richer information and also
some information about what interacted "along the way".
Best wishes,
Tom Bearden
Sir,
That is it is the true picture of what was
existent. |