Wednesday, March 2, 2016

Psychological chilling effect of using "negative", "dark" words in physics

I think there's been a subconscious teaching of negativity surrounding the electron. There was really no reason for physics to assign "negative" and "positive" charges on protons, electrons, etc. They're simply opposites of each other like magnetic dipoles. Electrical flow is mostly electrons; the exchange agents in chemical reactions are mostly electrons. The protons don't move around. So we should have seen them as a manifestation of energy instead of just "negative" charges.

To top it off, what are "positive" charges? They're a LACK of electrons! So we're conferring an aura of positivity / approval to an entity that's lacking something. You can't have positive charges moving anywhere. It's actually electrons moving in the opposite direction. This had made the study of physics syllabus so god damn complicated post-10th grade, in the education I got. It got very confusing as most of us students were looking at it from a maths +/- perspective only for most of the time.

Current flows from positive to negative, they said. But it was electrons jumping in the other direction! And they created this whole imaginary entity that was simultaneously mysteriously present at the same place, going in the opposite direction, just to justify the positive-negative metaphor. In all our formulas and equations, we had current. I suspect that it was made up this way for the simple and banal reason to avoid telling the kids that something NEGATIVE is travelling from here to there and bringing energy. And after imbibing that all though our syllabus, we then come to the idea that there might not actually be any real physical movement happening, that it might be just energy waves. And I'm still confused about it.

That made even the understanding of AC (Alternating Current) totally confusing.. actually I'm quite sure most of my classmates are still confused about it; even I am.
Because we had the direction of current from positive to negative, we keep getting stumped by the idea that 100 times a second (if 50Hz frequency), this current is changing directions, going backwards, then forwards. And then they tell us the AC is being transported from the generator over transmission lines to the home. But what the heck : you just told me it's going back and forth 100 times a second. Then how can one be transporting it? Shouldn't the whole thing be just vibrating or buzzing?

But instead of saying that it goes positive-negative, if we had simply tilted our heads by 90 degrees and seen AC as constantly swinging left and right while still moving forward like some drunk driver, then think how much easier the concept of Alternative Current would have been to explain!

If you're thinking this is taking it way too far, let me ask you this:
We have already fixated the capitalism-socialism (or communism) divide with right-left analogy. It's the same bi-polar situation as in case of electrons-protons or north-south magnetic poles. Two things, mutually opposite to each other. With the obvious difference from physics in that they don't attract each other, thought I'll re-interpret to posit that they do attract.. attacks and criticism.. from each other, and in many ways one needs the other in order to justify their own existence :P

Now consider what would have happened if instead of the terms "right" or "left", capitalism and socialism would have been assigned, "positive" or "negative". Imagine asking a politician to describe whether his views veer towards the positive or towards the negative.

Do you get what I'm saying now?

It's the same bi-poles. Yet look at the difference when you change the terminology.

Even with the right-left analogy, we have a serious problem : the monopolization of possibilities. A political worldview has evolved that says that things can only be right or left; or they can have bits and pieces of both and be center; that anything that is remarkably different from the traditional right or left cannot possibly exist. That's a very blinders-on view of the world and extremely dangerous in my opinion, precisely because it locks us into a duopoly, and one who controls the top-level decision makers in both left and right bastions, hence can control all of politics and attain monopoly.

North-south (magnetism). Positive-negative (electricity). Left-right (politics). All examples of binary / bipolar entites, and in varying degrees, negativity and positivity has been accorded to all. Creating a false divide between the bi-poles while ignoring that they're actually all complimentary; one needs the other and both work together.

So let's apply things in reverse. Consider how would things be if we taught the concept of electrics without ever saying that electrons are negative and protons are positive. Replace the whole framework with a more friendly pair of opposites. Sita-Gita? Ram-Shyam? (I'll avoid left-right because that's kinf of monopolized presently by politics). Kanju-Panju? Or maybe just ditching it all and saying simply that electrons flow and that is current; it's not going in the opposite direction. Which means flipping all circuit diagrams backwards.. or should I say, forwards!

Could we see physics textbooks, lesson plans, learning materials in the future that represent electricity without saying that the electron is negative?

=======

That also brings us to Dark Energy / Dark Matter.
And here we're going into not-adequately-explored grounds, mind. So, controversies alert.

It's been accepted by now that a large portion of the universe is composed of something that isn't being detected directly by western technological / instruments, yet its effect is being felt.

They termed it as Dark energy, Dark matter. Because their instruments couldn't detect it.

"It turns out that roughly 68% of the Universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the Universe."
--http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

And for some reason, there's been an externalization of the whole dark matter/energy thing : there seems to be a tacit unwritten assumption that even if 95% of all reality is acknowledged to be this "dark" stuff, it's probbably non-existent here on Earth. It's likely only out there, in distant constellations and galaxies. We don't have any of that stuff around us, no! Somehow there's an assumption that Earth is an exception from the rest of the universe : that 95% of its composition might be this "dark" stuff we can't detect, but here on planet Earth, and maybe even this solar system, there's 0% dark stuff, and 100% of whatever's there is completely detectable by our instruments, "non-dark" stuff. There 95%. But here, 0%! Where's the boundary zone? No mention of that.


Well, there's other things the instruments haven't been able to detect. And their technology's failings has been used by them (the scientific mainstream) as an excuse to refute the existence of what they're failing to detect.
The ability of water to hold properties after extreme dilution. The 4th state of water.
Qi / Chi energy used by Chinese monks for healing, but there's at least one video I've seen convincingly showing it capable of setting things on fire, passing currents through the body that can be felt but that don't register on a standard electric measurement device.
Pranic energy, pranic healing here in India.
Orgone energy, crystals.
Pyramid power.
Cold electricity, being reported by people experimenting with zero-point energy or free energy, which while capable of lighting up electic lights or running motors, is extremely different from regular "hot" electricity. Because it doesn't heat up the wires it's passing through, and people are being able to grab live wires carrying it with their hands without getting electrocuted.
[crossing over]
Belief and trust induced healing, growing of plants.
People's movements where without any real central structure or source material that everyone would have looked that, the same ideas spontaneously spring up in many minds at once.
Different colors of sunlight stored in water leading to different medicinal properties of the water.
The fourth state of water (look up the tedx talk on it!)

So on the one hand there's an admission that our instruments can't measure 95% of reality, while at the same time, there is a vehement opposition to acknowledging even the possibility of existence of the stuff I mentioned above. And mind, they don't even try to follow the scientific method of honest replication attempts with full communication with the original inventors first. "If our physics formulas and our technology based on those formulas doesn't account for it, then it doesn't exist." Even many of the parameters of standard-issue testing are incompatible with the core nature of some of these, making them impossible to prove in a lab full of skeptics. (like, for example, the need for love and trust between people when connecting telepathically, and the nature of it manifesting only in real circumstances when the situation calls for it, and not in artificially created controlled experiments)

Anyways, I don't want to go into whether these things are there or not. There's something before that, that is affecting the way we treat it.

The word "dark".

In one fell swoop, everything that's surprising, dazzling and amazing about reality, which breaks all known conventions and limitations, is now branded as "dark".
When they say 95% of reality is composed of dark energy or matter, we subconsciously get scared of it. Dark energy sounds like it is something to be afraid of. Oh no, now the science guys are going to have to defend us against yet another dark foe. Dark things : if we look for them, we're going to be looking out for dark effects. Negative effects. It's going to cause some problem in some way. Maybe that's what's causing so much pollution and taking us to disaster. All that dark stuff that our heroic science cannot detect. We're basically implying that 95% of the stuff out there is evil and wants to kill us.

I'm very inclined to think now, after having seen various inputs, that a lot of the "miracle" things we're observing which aren't being explained by orthodox materialistic scientific paradigm, are in some way coming from this "Dark" energy/matter complex that supposedly makes up majority of all reality.

What if what we're alluding to as "Dark" is actually "Light", or positive, good, lovely, nice stuff?

What if pranic/orgone energy that is being used to heal and purify and transformed harmful into beneficial, is coming from that "dark energy" that, as per the scientific status quo, encompasses our universe?

Now one knee-jerk response is : "But dark energy is supposed to be undetectable! How can you say alternative energy based healing is a manifestation of it?"
>> Great, thank you for acknowledging that alternative energy based healing exists and works (Gotcha!). The definition you quoted is YOUR definition, not mine. I do not agree with the western orthodox materialistic paradigm's assumption that dark energy shall forever and forever remain undetectable only. I think it makes more sense in noticing that these people are not wanting to acknowledge the existence of many things that do exist, so what they say is undetectable might logically reside in what they're deliberately overlooking. Elementary, my dear Watson. You can't find it because you're deliberately avoiding it.

Ok, back to...
What if (sorry for the sacrilege my materialistic friends) dark energy / dark matter actually has an inherent positive bias or positive nature to it?

Assigning a negatively biased "Dark" term severely limits most from even starting to ponder in this direction.
It has a chilling effect.
It prevents people from exploring further.

So screw these people who first claim neutrality and then deliberately assign negative terms to things they don't want explored any further. Let's destroy their motives by doing what they do not want us to do : explore the as-yet unexplained further.

A video for further explorations : Rupert Sheldrake's extended Science Set Free talk (2.5 hrs) where he gives a fantastic critique of the assumptions that led to the theories of dark energy/matter.

No comments:

Related Posts with Thumbnails