JB7.3. Everything is possible: we only need to find out how to achieve it
#1
@ Dr. Ing. Jan Pająk

JB7.3. Everything is possible: we only need to find out how to achieve it
Motto of this subsection: "Whenever you say 'no' surely you are at wrong."

Deductions provided in previous subsections revealed one of the byproducts of totalizm. Independently from the recipes for moral, happy, fulfilled, and intellectually uplifting life, totalizm is also able to propose a selection of tools, which create the philosophical climate and intellectual requirements necessary for a free development of new ideas and inventions. In respect to the content of this monograph, just such a climate should provide fruits in the form of faster acceptance and completion of various devices described, amongst others, in subsections OC3.1 to OC3.5, especially such devices as the Oscillatory Chamber, the Magnocraft, a telekinetic battery, and telepathic transmitters.
Through the explanation of philosophical principles, which stand behind various human attitudes, totalizm is also able to explain, why so much of excellent inventions and ideas is still lost, and why history quotes numerous persons of authority, who were completely at wrong in their immature negation of inventions, which later were completed with a success.
Although no one is willing to admit this, many of highly educated people act and behave in accordance with the doctrine of parasitism that "only those things are possible, which we already know how to achieve" (see the doctrine #5 in subsection JB6). This doctrine was, in the past, and still is at present, the unofficial foundation for the "ruling philosophy" of orthodox institutional science. All eras know scholars who followed this doctrine, attacking every new invention, laughing at every new discovery, and ridiculing every new idea. This doctrine is responsible for an impossible even to estimate number of inventions being abandoned half way in their development, and for the successful prevention of a more rapid advancement of our civilization.
There are numerous publications available, which quote well-known and respectable people, whose claim "it's impossible", and "it never is going to be accomplished", was later proved to be completely wrong. The content of these claims now sounds ridiculous, but at the time when they were stated, they dissipated from creators of progress enormous amount of moral energy, thus they caused a lot of harm and confusion. We must remember that they originated from people having high authority and important positions, whereas their destructive power was usually directed against young and unknown inventors. Let us remind ourselves of some of these statements.
"Nothing made of iron could possibly float" - scoffers in 1787 on the first ship of iron built by John Wilkinson (quoted from the book [1JB7.3] by J. Penry-Jones, "The Burke Book of Ships and Shipping", Burke Publishing Company Ltd., August 1965, page 10).
"Gentlemen, I would rather believe that those two Yankee professors would lie than believe that stones would fall from heaven" - President Thomas Jefferson on the observation of a great meteorite in 1807 in Weston, Connecticut (quoted from the book [2JB7.3] by H.H. Nininger, "Find a falling star", Paul S. Eriksson, New York 1972, ISBN 0- 8397-2229-X, page 4; see also [6JB7.3] below, page 296).
"A grip of a smooth iron wheel on a smooth iron rail would not suffice to haul a train. A locomotive must horse itself along on mechanical legs or winch along a rack rail with a pinion wheel" - John Blenkinsop and others on William Hedley's theoretical solution of the adhesion problem proved correct experimentally in 1813 by the locomotive "Puffing Billy" - see Figure J3 (this is my own summary of the historic analysis presented in the book [3JB7.3] by E.L. Cornwell, "History of Railways", Hamlyn-Nel, London 1976, ISBN 0-600-37587-0, page 14). Note that the "adhesion problem" in general terms boils down to the fact, that first designers of locomotives deeply believed that if one propels locomotives via their smooth wheels, then these wheels would slip along the smooth rails, and would rotate in the same spot. Thus, according to these beliefs, smooth wheels should not be able to haul heavy wagons attached to locomotives. But William Hedley used a known theoretical equation for a force of horizontal friction "T" - which states that this force is proportional to the force of vertical load "F" and to the coefficient of friction "μ", i.e.: "T = Fμ". Thus, by knowing what is the coefficient of friction "μ" of locomotive wheels against rails, and knowing the weight "F" of this locomotive, he calculated precisely, that after the mass of locomotive is distributed correctly, it surely must be able to start moving and to haul wagons that are attached to it. In Figure JB1 /?/ of this monograph a locomotive is shown, which hauled wagons NOT with the smooth wheels - as this was suggested by Hedley, but it used for propulsion a pinion wheel which cooperated with a rack rail. In such a manner this particular locomotive used for motion a mechanical version of horse's legs. 
"Heavier-than-air machines, flying machines, are impossible!" - Lord Kelvin 1895 (one statement from a large list of quotations proved wrong that has been compiled by Robyn Williams in [4JB7.3] "Australian Science Magazine", Vol. 1, No 1, 1985; see also book [6JB7.3] below, page 236).
"Very interesting, Whittle my boy, but it will never work" - a Cambridge professor of aeronautical engineering to jet engine developer, Sir Frank Whittle, about 1930 (one of numerous examples of how wrong educated people can be, collected in the paperback [5JB7.3] by Graham Nown, "The World's Worst Predictions", Arrow 1985). The above quotation explains why the first jet engine was not built in England, but in Germany (1939 - Heinkel "He 178"), and why Sir Whittle was allowed to develop his invention only after German jet aeroplanes proved to be superior to English propeller fighters.
"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will" - Albert Einstein, 1932 (one quotation from a number of mistaken predictions of some authoritative sources, compiled in the paperback [6JB7.3] by Christopher Cerf and Victor Navasky, "The Experts Speak - the definitive compendium of authoritative misinformation", Pantheon Books, New York 1984, ISBN 0-394-71334-6 (pbk.), page 215).
These claims, along with many others, have proved that almost every idea which at a particular time has been discredited and scoffed at, is completed a few years or decades later. This means that the statement "impossible" is relative, and only applies to a particular level of our development. Therefore the existence of such faulty claims in the past, is not only an indication of mistakes in judgment of individuals, but also proof of an error existing in doctrines of the ruling philosophy of human science. The universe seems to be built in such a manner that "every goal without conditions attached to it, is possible: we only need to find out the way to achieve it" - see also subsection I5.4. In all actions and discussions of scholars, the above reformed recommendation of totalizm should replace the previous conservative and wrong doctrine, taken from the philosophy of parasitism. This new recommendation should become an essential foundation for the future philosophy of reformed science.
The above recommendation of totalizm, which states that "every goal without conditions attached to it, is possible: we only need to find out the way to achieve it", similarly as all other descriptions of the reality that surrounds us, has, however, a build in simplifying condition. We should be aware of the existence of this condition and consider it during practical application of this recommendation. This condition states that the mentioned recommendation we are going to use only for pure goals, means for the goals which do not have any requirements build into them or attached to them. Such requirements could imply the manners, in which the accomplishing of these goals must be carried out (after all, these manners of accomplishing of given goals must be discovered in the future, therefore they cannot be build into the goals themselves). In order to express this in other words, this recommendation applies only to goals which state "what", but they do not forward any requirements regarding "how" this "what" should be accomplished. If this recommendation is also used for manners of accomplishing given goals, then our request to be fulfilled in every possible case, would be equal to the request to God, that the universe must not work as it works, but it must work as we requested. Of course, such a request would be a preposterous arrogance from our side. After all, the universe works as it works, and it is not our right to forward any requests about it. Therefore, before we decide, whether a given goal fulfils the recommendation of totalizm that "every unconditional goal is achievable - we only need to find a manner how to accomplish it", we firstly need to determine, whether we are considering an unconditional goal, or a manner of accomplishing a goal that is conditioned by the way we express a given goal. If it would be a manner of accomplishing a goal, then we would simultaneously try to request, that the universe operates in the way we want it to operate. For example, the goal expressed by the objective of "building an antigravitational spaceship", which is discussed in chapter HB, and which stems from the old concept of monopolar gravity, is not an unconditional goal. Actually it is a mixture of a goal and a manner of accomplishing it. As such, it represent our request to the universe that this universe works according to our wishes, or more strictly according to the old (and entirely wrong) concept of monopolar gravity adhered by the orthodox science. After all, the idea of "antigravitational field", which this spaceship supposed to use, is strictly defined and contains various conditions regarding what it originates from, how it works, what properties it displays, etc. Thus, in order to make possible the completion of such an antigravitational spaceship, the universe would need to work in such a manner, that the formation of antigravitational field would be possible in our dimensions, means the universe would need to work exactly according to the old concept of monopolar gravity. In turn demanding from the universe to work in such a manner, is a great arrogance on our part. Therefore, in order to change this mixture of a goal and a manner of accomplishing it, into a pure, unconditional goal, the previous objective would need to be formulated in a different manner. For example, it could be expressed as a pure goal with the use of the following wording: "building a spaceship, which uses some kind of a field that repels it from Earth", or with the use of following description: "building a spaceship which uses a kind of the field, the effects of operation of which are similar to the effects of a hypothetical antigravity field". After such a re-expressing, immediately the recommendation of totalizm stating that "every unconditional goal is achievable - we only need to find a manner how to accomplish it" starts to apply to this pure goal. This is documented in subsections A2, A4, H6.1 and H7.1 of this monograph, and also in chapters F, L /?/ and M of other monograph [1/4] (these chapters describe various spaceship, the operation of which implements such a pure goal).
Folk wisdom also records and confirms that the recommendation of totalizm that "every unconditional goal is achievable - we only need to find a manner how to accomplish it" actually works in the universe. This folklore confirmation takes the form of proverbs, and fables with morales. For example, relatively well it is expressed by the Polish proverb "there are no unconquerable castles - there are only castles which were clumsily attacked" (i.e. "nie ma niezdobytych twierdz, sa tylko twierdze zle zdobywane").
Let us nor summarise the totaliztic truth, which I try to convey with the use of this subsection. Any categorical claim, thinking, or conviction about any pure and unconditional goal, that in the absolute sense it is "impossible" to accomplish:
- Is going to prove to be wrong in the future, as inevitably a time must come, when someone is going to prove, that actually this goal is possible to accomplish;
- Dissipates a significant amount of moral energy from all people involved, therefore in the light of totalizm it represents a highly "immoral" stand (or the heaviest one amongst all totaliztic sins, i.e. the "oppression");
- Runs against moral laws, thus in the future it brings back at least equally unpleasant consequences for the person who states such an opinion, as the consequences that it brought to the victim at the time when it was expressed;
- Is a sign of philosophical immaturity of the person who expresses it. Therefore the sole fact of appearing such an idea, should be a sign for the person who things so, to seriously reconsider his/her own philosophical horizons. In turn to other people, who hear such an opinion, this is an indication that they should not take seriously the person who expressed it - similarly as no-one takes seriously statements of immature children who forward their opinions without having any idea about the subject which they address.
Thus instead of claiming that something is "impossible" in the absolute sense, totalizm rather recommends to express specific objections, the disclosure of which clarifies reasons why a given idea cannot be accomplished in a given moment of time (i.e. to apply so called "constructive criticism" - see also subsection JD11.6 /?/). Such specific reservations, which are expressed with balanced and well selected words, supported with arguments and justifications, and which apply exclusively to the goal not to the creator of this goal, are highly constructive, because:
- They allow to identify factors, which hold back the accomplishing of a given goal in the considered time, 
- They increase the amount of moral energy in all people involved, thus they represent a "moral" behaviour (and a totaliztic good deed),
- They run along moral laws, thus their consequences that in the future are going to return to the speaking person, are tolerable,
- They are a sign of philosophical maturity and expertise of the person who states them, therefore they are a source of the increase of his/her respect and recognition by other people.
People acting in accordance with this reformed recommendation of totalizm, would not discuss goals, as according to it every pure goal is achievable. They would rather concentrate their efforts on verifying the ways of achieving these goals. By this means, the respect and authority of many people would be secure when the inventions or ideas they tried to disqualify became reality. To prevent us from repeating the same errors with regard to the ideas presented in this monograph, perhaps we should implement this reformed recommendation immediately, beginning with the content of this monograph.

=> JB7.4.
Antworten to top



Gehe zu:


Benutzer, die gerade dieses Thema anschauen: 1 Gast/Gäste