I stand on what I posted.
Further discussion below.
"Christian Wilms" <usenet at out-of-phase.de> wrote in message
news:1g8zuaa.3hthfap5j388N%usenet at out-of-phase.de...
> "k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>> > "Capacitance" is =just= the current that is allowed
> > by "resistance", so Ohm's Law is, in fact, all that's
> > necessary.
>> I'm sorry Ken, but at some point I think it's
> neccessary to tell you, that you are just simply
> spoken wrong. Any Physics text-book will tell
> you the difference between resistance and
> capacitance and why Ohm's law is not sufficient
> to explain the behaviour of an RC-circuit.
It is. I've done exactly that. One just has to
undo the 'compoundedness' of "capacitor",
so one can see the energydynamics in their
>> Once you reach a point at which all of
> science has to be re-written in order for
> one's theory to persist, one should consider
> re-writing one's theory.
When I speak of "rewriting all of Science",
I'm referring to analogous 'events' that have
been episodically-occuring, but routine, within
the History of Science.
I'm not saying that it's 'easy'. It isn't, which is
why it only occurs episodically.
The way it always happens is that accumulated
evidence 'outlines' stuff with which established
Theory cannot cope.
To overcome this 'difficulty', the Theorist, looks
at the evidence in new ways, gains a toe-hold,
and follows its lead.
In my own work, the Problem with which est-
ablished Theory could not cope was with respect
to folks Killing one another for 'reasons' that
have no basis in any absolute external experiential
I got a 'toe-hold', "TD E/I-minimization" within
"decussation", and followed-it-through.
The 'funny' thing is that, as I've been discussing
online for more than 15 'years', my 'toe-hold'
stuff is applicable to =all= of physical reality.
Therefore, there's no way around to rewrite
=all= of Science.
It's just what needs to be done.
It's =Hard= when Obligation with respect to
such falls to one.
But, if one is up to the task, one just does it.
I am, I do - taking my 'lumps' with what re-
mains of my ability to 'smile'.
> The OP asked a simple question to which
> several people tried to responded in an adequate
> manner - imho Matt being the one who managed
> this the best.
I'm Sorry. I've been working =beyond= anything
that's been discussed all along.
I stand on what I've posted.
> Maybe it would be adequate not to totally
> confuse the OP.
The problem, here, is that b.n is the only 'place'
in which I can do the work I do.
It's not a 'problem' with respect to relative
'levels' of understanding [and, BTW, I expect
that there's no 'worry' with respect to "confus[ing]
the OP"], it doesn't matter. Folks who can't
understand the stuff I discuss just 'flip-it-off' [like
a light switch]. Sometimes, they 'vent' [literally,
"vent" the excess TD E/I that what I've discussed
has induced within their nervous systems].
Then "the dust settles", and the Science has been
All of this is just in the way that nervous systems
Former Learning is embodied in formerly-created
"biological mass", which has commensurate "be-
havioral inertia", and which, therefore, cannot just
be 'wished-away'. It's physically-real stuff, that was
constructed at considerable energy-consumption
cost, which energy-consumption cost constitutes
a 'measure' of the 'unliklihood' that individuals will
be able to rapidly 'convert' [after T. S. Kuhn] to
the positions I discuss.
So, one who understands how nervous systems
process information, takes this stuff 'on the chin',
and does what needs to be done, 'regardless'.
It's not for the faint-of-heart.
> There is a time and place for the discussion of
> alternate scientific theories and there is a time and
> place for giving answers according to textbooks -
It's just that there's =never= a 'time' and place for
doing the merely-'unfamiliar' thing that just Needs
to be done.
So, one has to make the 'time' and place.
I'm not 'worried' about others' abilities to cope.
[Although there's no end to the 'amusement' inherent.]
> I think this thread is the former and I'm certain most
> people in bn would agree on that. People more often
> than not want an answer they can apply in their
> situation and I don't think the answers AoK may or
> may not have to offer fall into that category.
It's as above. There's =never= a 'time' and place
that does not 'move away from' that which is
So, one just has to do-it.
>> Regards, Chris
I understand your 'point'. It's just that, in the midst of
wrestling with the specifics of Experiment, the 'big-
picture' must also be addressed - so that Experiment
receives guidance with respect to what remains needing-
It's been my commonplace experience
since a Child.
I've always seen what exists-beyond, and share it with
folks. Until I understood what was going on, it used to
'drive my teachers nuts'. Then, when I understood what
was going on, I just went 'dark', still continuing to see-
beyond, but not 'driving my teachers nuts'.
But, Obligation arose. Folks'll Suffer and Die if I don't
So I do.
It's routinely the case that I get 'beat-up' for doing so,
but it's also routinely been the case that, "after the dust
has settled", folks comprehend, and follow, the Leads
I've given them.
What's 'hilarious' is that, even though the Gift, inherent,
is routinely Substantial, making Substantial differences,
for the better, within folks' experiences, no one has ever
acknowledged receiving the Gifts :-]
I just get 'beat-up', and, then, see my work Published
in others' names :-]
But I do understand the position you've expressed.
Thank You for reaching out to me.
Cheers, Chris, ken [k. p. collins]