
Originally Posted by
MJA
Lloyd,
Allow me to wade into the quagmire of current knowledge that you so eloquently
expound and ask some question you helped create? [I think the questions have always been there, but thanks for the credit.]
1) To fill in the incomplete gap of knowledge that you suggest, for the solution we seek, would it be best to add to our knowledge or reduce or simplify what we already know? [The greatest effort, I think, should be concentrated on simplifying what already exists, by outling such knowledge systems into clear and concise prioritized levels, throwing out the invalid, keeping the factual, and proving the factual. We also must add a new simplification language to describe, not only physics and such other topics, as exist on this forum, but all other interdisciplinary studies, as well. The key I see, is the integration of all fields of knowledge, with universal system's studies, or universalism, as it's called, already, but most don't even realize these fields of study were started over forty years ago, and only a handful of colleges in the world even offer significant courses. From here, we should prioritize by outline, the most important studies and subjects, and important investigation areas of, to the insignificant, as they truly apply to real world conditions. No-one is doing this, or even attempting to. I think this is a real problem, with everyone going off willy-nilly, all over the place, without even realizing where true priorities even play in. This must change.]
2) Does current man with his vast knowledge have more or less questions of nature than original man, or simply who is or was closest to truth. [Current man has far less questions, and far more answers than original man, IMO. This by no means doesn't mean all men and women do, but the handful of serious Ph.D.' professors, and the handful of serious autodidact polymaths certainly do. Current man, at the factual levels, is far closer to the absolute truths___by millenia.]
3) If complete knowledge were as simple as "I," could "I" be taught to the masses? [Of course it could, and very easily. The trouble with current knowledge, is seeing through the theocracy of current academic and political knowledge fallacies, to the fundamental facts, in all fields of study. Outlining the importance of particular studies, and areas of this study importance, would greatly reduce this quagmire. Colleges should be concentrating on just such an outline of importances, yet we get nothing but academic and political entreprenaurial greed, controlling the globe's direction of false travel. Everyone, and all subjects are treated as equal, and herein lies the major trouble, our very theocratic democracy beliefs of liberty___too much liberty respect is just as dangerous, as not enough. We need to respect the older prejudices of knowledge importances, which used to be respected___what's truly worth studying? Just look at Berkeley___8100 courses, when Harvard, in the 1700's had 67 courses, to teach basicly, the same thing. The problem is the breaking of true knowledge, into too much false dis-integration___whatever you call it. This must change.]
4) Could you give an example of an absolute objectable object, or is it only probable or dice at best?[The earth___The sun___The absolute universe.]
5) Is "C" absolute certain or absolute probable? [Light is cerain, velocity is absolutely known to change with matter density___simple example, light travels approximately 1/3 C in water. We know it travels different speeds in all different mediums and their densities. This truly means, the early universe, having a thinner density, by common sense of universal evolution, traveled higher C. It's simple common sense, the radiation medium was a thinner density medium in the early universe___less stars. So, C is absolutely changing over time. It's slower now, than then, yet it's always universally constantly changing, in each local area of space. To measure it is only possible with macro logic knowledge, comparing micro logic facts, and true laws of physics correspondences.]
6) Measure? [Answered above, but the most accurate measure of all macro and micro motions is the cesium clock, as most use this measuring standard. You find the most facts of physics when you prioritize the laws of physics with the macro logic facts, with the micro logic facts, and the known laws of physics, being truly respected. The math and gauge theories follow the true scientific facts, the theoretical gauge theories, are just that___theoretical.]
Thanks,
MJA