Let Global Public Play with Science by Ajay Bhatla

Eco-systems are routinely destroyed by people attempting to help the starving, without regard to population control and the pressures it puts on local eco-systems. Letting humanity "play" is ultimate destructive sustainability.

Hi Ajay,

Interesting, but I think we need to make sure we realize that Science is a process, not a discrete object or something you can put in a breadbox. And often it is a process which takes a lot of time (and $). What we need to do is get people, young people, energized about the process by showing them how really interesting the world and universe is, how scientists look and think about things, and once hooked, then they can play, dream and tinker all they want - using the process of science. The IT helps to spread the word wider and faster.

Cheers

Dear Mr. Bhatla,

I thought that your essay was very well written, and I do hope that it does well in the competition. I only have one minor quibble with it that I do hope you do not mind me mentioning.

Einstein's general and special theory of relativity is incorrect. Einstein's assertion that e=mc² is incorrect. Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe.

INERT LIGHT THEORY

Based on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A surface can be interior or exterior. All material surfaces must travel at a constant speed. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent speed that has to be less than the constant speed the surface travels at. While a surface can travel in any direction, a sub-surface can only travel either inwardly or outwardly. A sub-surface can expand or contract. Surfaces and sub-surfaces can be exchanged by the application of natural or fabricated force. The surfaces of the sub-sub-microscopic can never be altered. This is why matter cannot be destroyed. This is why anti-matter can never be created. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at an inconsistant rate of speed that is less than the "speed" of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the "speed" of light because all surfaces can only travel at the constant "speed" of light. When a light radiant strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed mingled sub-sub and sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that collectively, actually form a surface.

In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.

Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers "see" abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real fire, a real candle, or light from out of a real lightning bug's bottom.

Dear Mr. Fisher,

Thank you for your kind comment on my essay. I am glad you enjoyed reading it.

I am still trying to digest your comment on Einstein's thinking, but here's where I am coming from:

- A long time ago, I remember concluding that "science" is always a work in progress and will, literally, never end. So, yes, Einstein is only one of the latest minds to reveal a set of ideas on what we know about 'why nature works the way it does.' Eventually, Einstein will be proven wrong completely or his thinking will be tweaked in some way for us to know more about nature.

- With science always being a "work in progress" the effort is, thus, to reduce "ignorance" in humans of some kind about nature. Your model, if I may call it that, of "materials and surfaces" is also worth considering. Some of the questions I am struggling with on your model are: Isn't light a form of energy? Doesn't all mass have a surface? What if light ends up having a surface? How do your comments accept the existence of the Higgs-Boson (god's particle), Was the Big Bang only about light?... ... and, most importantly, what does your model mean for humanity's future?

I look forward to reading your essay and, hopefully, it will further inform me about your thinking. Thank you for attracting my attention.

Dear Ajay,

I read your essay with great interest. I fully agree with you that we need new paradigms of science as a social phenomenon and a new paradigm in the philosophical foundations of science. Need "open science" for the benefit of a more sustainable future of Humanity. Information for this era opens new promising prospects. Let's hope and work together!

I wish you good luck!

All the Best,

Vladimir

Hi Ajay,

Great essay! I agree with you; science is our guide to a better future. But for that to happen, all people should believe in science, and what better way to get the public engaged with science than through play? In your essay, you provided some interesting ideas to achieve that goal.

In my essay Improving Science for a Better Future , I discussed the importance of raising the public understanding of science. I would be glad to receive your opinion.

Best regards,

Mohammed

Hi Ajay,

I really enjoyed your essay. What a great idea to give everyone the opportunity to play with science.I have not come across the Lego for building robots but I'm sure my kids would have loved it.I expect it is expensive though. Have you come across this marvelous TED talk which shows rural indian children teaching themselves, English and science using a computer in a wall. It demonstrates how little is needed to make huge differences in people's lives.Build a school in the cloud

I hope you get lots of interested readers, Good luck, Georgina

Dear Ajay

Thanks for your thoughtful questions on my thread, I answered you there, now I am going to read your contribution and react later on.

best regards

Wilhelmus

I see that I can cut and paste here so I give you the comment here

Imagine every individual surrounded by a sphere where all signals from everywhere are coming in and hit the surface simultaneously. In our causal existence where each location of an individual has a different location on the grid, so each sphere is different from the other. This means that each causal consciousness is receiving different data for his senses, so is from the beginning on creating what we call "individuality" being different from the other...

The original source of any (causal)consciousness is its non causal part in Total Simultaneity. So perhaps there we are ALL "ONE" (GOD?).

The causal part of this ALL Consciousness is imprisoned in what we are calling TIME, where different eternal now moments are lined up to "memory". This implicates "differences" that can be seen as good or bad, just because of the fact that they are different. This duality in our causal life with birth and death is so a result of the causal consciousness being trapped in time.

Wilhelmus

Ajay,

I salute your optimism. Perhaps America's culture, unless you are among the top 1%, doesn't lend one such optimism. We see a corporate force with control issues and greed I did not see in my childhood. Many problems you correctly identify as local and science with universal laws certainly defies culture in solution but not necessarily in the cooperative effort needed.

The power of the people of course is a force that needs to be marshalled and in large numbers and a determined effort, it cannot be deterred. On the other side of the coin are those dependent on tyrannical forces for their livelihood.

Steering our future, we can all see, is a daunting task.

Jim

Mohammed,

Thanks for your reply.

In my interactions with fellow scientists and ordinary people, the task to convince anyone else to "believe in science" or "believe in anything" boils down to just one fact: What does that person's life experience tells him/her vs. what science tells him/her? Life experience will always win. When a life experience says something quite different from what science says, most people do not believe science. Also, it is not that scientists believe all science, scientists believe only that science that has believable scientists behind it. When there is no life experience at all, people can and do believe whatever they like.

I chose 'play' and 'tinkering' because everyone enjoys both and finds time in their busy schedule for both play and tinkering. Once time is being spent in play to experience something, then that something gathers belief. That's how I plan to get large numbers of people solving some very difficult problems!

- Ajay