New York Times on the Web Forums Science

Missile Defense

Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars" defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an application of science be successful? Is a militarized space inevitable, necessary or impossible?

Read Debates, a new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every Thursday.

rshow55 - 09:36pm Sep 19, 2002 EST (# 4428 of 4430)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

lchic 9/19/02 8:50pm

A pattern is a pattern when it looks like a pattern to you .

And you are a pretty good, but fallible judge.

The questions of what is patentable is a highly subjective and ad hoc decision - - but creativity and invention are plainly all around us, and within us.

Thinking about Calvin, and hexagons (with 6 sides) thought about patterns of connection. The geometry below is just for showing binary connections - it fits hexagonal patterns well.

Suppose we talk about a hex pattern of switches, put in the form of a binary counting tree, and nested trees of trees:

A = 1 . . . . . 6 binary connections
. . . 1 . . 1
. . . 1 . . 1 . . 1

Assembly level 1: . . 36 switches

B = A
. . . .A . . A
. . . .A . . A . . A

Assembly level 2: . . 216 switches

C = B
. . . . B . . B
. . . . B . . B . . B

Assembly level 3: . . 1296 switches

D = C
. . . . C . . C
. . . . C . . C . . C

Assembly level 4: . . 7776 switches

E = D
. . . . D . . D
. . . . D . . D . . D

If you look at this switching, at the level of connection - and combine it with resonant coding, according to patterns such as those set out in the following papers - the amount of logical processing capablity in the brain is prodigious - and (if you assume resonant coding) the processing capacity is prodigious - and we're already as smart as animals are ever going to be. We have many 100s of times more neurons than we're ever going to need for logic already. If we can sort things out - and learn and teach each other the basics.

rshow55 - 09:38pm Sep 19, 2002 EST (# 4429 of 4430)
Can we do a better job of finding truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have done and worked for on this thread.

I did this work with Steve Kline in 1997:

HYPOTHESIS: DENDRITES, DENDRITIC SPINES, AND STEREOCILIA HAVE RESONANT MODES UNDER S-K THEORY by M.R. Showalter http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/hypothesis/

REASONS TO DOUBT THE CURRENT NEURAL CONDUCTION MODEL by M.R. Showalter http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/doubt/

A NEW PASSIVE NEURAL EQUATION. Part a: derivation by M.R.Showalter http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/deriva/

A PASSIVE NEURAL EQUATION: Part b: neural conduction properties by M.R. Showalter http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/derivb/

Here are the physical derivation (math) papers we submitted to NATURE:

MODELING OF PHYSICAL SYSTEMS ACCORDING TO MAXWELL'S FIRST METHOD by M.R.Showalter and S.J.Kline http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/maxmeth/

EQUATIONS FROM COUPLED FINITE INCREMENT PHYSICAL MODELS MUST BE SIMPLIFIED IN INTENSIVE FORM by M.R.Showalter and S.J.Kline http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/pointfrm/

If equations derived according to Maxwell's 1st method are right, inferences from experiments are only valid over a RESTRICTED range by M.R. Showalter and S.J. Kline http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/range/

For background, we also submitted an annotation of an excellent survey article, showing how the new theory fit what was known.

A verbatim copy of COMPUTATION AND THE SINGLE NEURON by Christof Koch taken from NATURE, 16 January, 1997 annotated and with two appendices by M.Robert Showalter http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/kochanno/

I believe that the results above are right, but they concern a still-controversial issue concerning the derivation of differential equations from physical models. The following piece supports the S-K equations WITHOUT making any derivation assumptions at all. This is a neural line conduction model. It uses linear algebra alone (Kirchhoff's laws).

A REDERIVATION OF THE ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE EQUATIONS USING NETWORK THEORY SHOWS NEW TERMS THAT MATTER IN NEURAL TRANSMISSION by M.R. Showalter http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt/kirch1/

Nature replied in a positive way -- (see end of http://www.wisc.edu/rshowalt )-- from their point of view - - but didn't help us with the checking we'd asked for - for reasons I understand better now, because of work on paradigm conflict that I've done with lchic , the most valuable mind I've ever worked with.

I've believed, for some time, that if people simply did some work - we'd all be as smart as animals can be -- and, with some care, as wise as animals can be, as well.

Less ambitiously - - reading instruction would be better - and we could learn to make peace with each other -- and live prosperously.

Which would be a good thing, in the eyes of God - if you believe in God.

Which I sometimes do.

. . .

If you wonder why I've had some circumstantial trouble getting the case across - click rshow55 , and look, particularly, to references about Bill Casey.

I've been in an awkward situation.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense