Essay Abstract

To steer is to direct and regarding the future to connect with not just academic and government institutions as has been the primary method in the past, but also with corporate especially global corporate institutions. The changing political-economic climate that commerce be engaged both from the ground up as we see in organizations like Virgin Galactic and Space X, as well as more traditional and established firms in the fields of energy, energy services, banking, agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and pharmacy. A mutually beneficial merger between science and commerce fr the good of posterity is proposed.

Author Bio

I am a Science Advocate, Pi Tau Sigma Mechanical Engineer, Master of Business Administration, Geopolitical Economist, married father of four children with multiple interests in Mathematics, Science primarily Physics, and within Physics Dark Energy research and Planetary Sciences as well as Quantum Cosmology. I maintain the web log "Multiplication by Infinity" and encourage my friends and fellow intellectuals to think outside the box but if it's not too much trouble to keep one foot in. I admire theory born of experimental results, phenomenology, most of all. I am currently founding a theoretical think tank the Somerset Institute for Advanced Logic.

Download Essay PDF File

6 days later

Steven, I see how passionate you are about both our learning more fundamental science, as well as exploring the particulars of our celestial neighborhood - for both edification and practical benefit. Surely you have a point about support and enabling of these endeavors: the government is receding these days as the big source and direction it used to be. There are pros and cons of seeking help from private sources, but it seems to be a necessity regardless for the foreseeable future. Many private achievers are already showing they have much right stuff - particularly in low-orbit launch progress. However, note the continuing capabilities of government bodies, such as the US Navy recently finding out an efficient way to electrolyze and synthesize fuel from seawater and carbon dioxide. Let's hope all sectors can and will continue to promote research and exploration for the common good.

One danger worries me, and that is the tying of research to funders who may want to control what is said. REM, "it's hard to tell the truth when your paycheck depends on not doing so" etc. So we especially need research funding based on respect for the scientific method, for veritas.

PS, my own essay is here. It's about improving our way of thinking, and hopefulness on that account due to our minds being more than as AI presumes. Cheers.

Dear Mr. Colyer-Sivco,

I thought that your essay was exceptionally well written. I do have one minor quibble 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. Although scientists insist that light can be absorbed, or reflected, or refracted, this is additional proof that light cannot have a surface. It would be physically impossible for a surface to absorb another surface, or reflect another surface ,or refract another surface.

Abstract theory cannot ever have unification because it is perfect.. Only reality is unified because there is only one unique 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 a 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.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

10 days later

P.S., I will use the following rating scale to rate the essays of authors who tell me that they have rated my essay:

10 - the essay is perfection and I learned a tremendous amount

9 - the essay was extremely good, and I learned a lot

8 - the essay was very good, and I learned something

7 - the essay was good, and it had some helpful suggestions

6 - slightly favorable indifference

5 - unfavorable indifference

4 - the essay was pretty shoddy and boring

3 - the essay was of poor quality and boring

2 - the essay was of very poor quality and boring

1 - the essay was of shockingly poor quality and extremely flawed

After all, that is essentially what the numbers mean.

The following is a general observation:

Is it not ironic that so many authors who have written about how we should improve our future as a species, to a certain extent, appear to be motivated by self-interest in their rating practices? (As evidence, I offer the observation that no article under 3 deserves such a rating, and nearly every article above 4 deserves a higher rating.)

15 days later

Steven,

I like your essay very much. "Ah, but a Man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven for?"

An insightful history of science.

Thanks,

Don Limuti

G. Steven Colyer-Sivco,

Wow! You need more ratings. You receive mine now. Your essay is a welcome encouragement for steering without the yokes (These are my words. You may not agree.) that come with idealists' plans to fix-the-world. A fair-minded mixture of freedom and cooperation with recognition of the good side of the nature of humanity. We are not "a lost child" as another essayist wrote. We are adventurers overcoming great obstacles. Some of what you wrote I would have said differently, but, that is irrelevant. My thoughts are mine, your thoughts are yours, and it is yours that I learn from by reading your essay. It was a wonderful read. Thank you for writing it.

James Putnam

G. Steven Colyer-Sivco,

Since I rated your essay as the 5th rating, you quickly received probably a 4 and a 2. You need three more ratings that hopefully lift you up enough to make the finals. Good luck.

James

Hi G. Steven,

I enjoyed reading your essay, it is well written.

Rich philanthropists do have the power to steer humanity in positive directions. The model towns of major chocolate manufacturers are examples of how money can be used to greatly improve quality of life while still making good commercial sense.The Towns That Chocolate Built Look at Google images to see lovely Bournville.

Best wishes, Georgina

    Steven, I'm glad to see that your piece has received the greater attention and rating that it deserved. Good luck.

    Steven,

    A very enjoyable read and resume. I like your comment; "But the cherry on the topping of the whipped cream that is Quantum Mechanics on the fudge of Special Relativity on the ice cream of Maxwell and Newton.." except that of course Paul Dirac did not quite "Unite" SR and QM as they remain incompatible. As Roger Penrose points out there is a still a chasm between the descriptions, even including their perceptions of time itself.

    Yet of course nature is one, so a common description IS possible which Bob and Alice find and explain in the allegorical tale of my own essay which I hope you read and enjoy. It shows Einstein was correct in the at we need a new way of thinking. Not only was SR a fudge but QM was not the complete reality (see the reproduced classroom experiments in the end notes).

    Well written. I hope my score may help your essay deservedly into the final cut. Best of luck.

    Peter

    • [deleted]

    Dear Steven,

    Wonderful essay with full of commonsense wisdoms. I do hope we can work together. If you are interested, email me to leo@shi.com. Let's work to together to ensure the survival of the most previous cargo in our universe.

    Best wishes,

    Leo KoGuan

    Dear Steven,

    Wonderful essay with full of commonsense wisdoms. I do hope we can work together. If you are interested, email me to leo@shi.com. Let's work together to ensure the survival of the most previous cargo in our universe.

    Best wishes,

    Leo KoGuan

    6 days later

    Dear Steven,

    I read your essay with great interest. You write in the spirit of Descartes methodical doubt. I am very close in spirit to your ideas. Basic science can overcome the "crisis of representation and interpretation" (T.Romanovskaya "Modern physics and contemporary art-parallels of style".) is relying on imagination to make a more profound interpretation of accumulated Knowledge. We need to deep in the dialectics of Nature, to think more deeply dialectical thought of Heraclitus: "Aion is a child playing, playing checkers; power over the world belongs to the child", to see the primordial structure of Nature, to hear voice of Nature and then draw the sought-for eidos of Universe. I am sure that the picture of the world of physics should be the same rich meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl) as the world picture lyricists.

    Best regards,

    Vladimir

    • [deleted]

    Steve,

    This is beautifully written; it ties together science, math, history, and politics, to draw a larger picture of how far humanity has come and how much further we still have to go. Your knowledge of the history of science and grasp of how each individual scientist made a difference with his/her own unique contribution is impressive. This breadth of vision is what humanity needs if we are to explore the solar system, travel to the stars, and develop the next generation of technology. It is rare to find science writing that is also poetry, that takes on a unique voice and viewpoint. You remind us that all academic disciplines are related, not separate, and need to be shared with future generations.

    I do worry that our ship is being steered in the wrong direction by multi-national corporations, wealth industrialists, and the governments both have bought and paid for worldwide, specifically in our persistence in relying on fossil fuels in spite of the now obvious consequences of burning them. Global warming is taking us to a very frightening place, and too many people motivated by profit and short term gain are steering the ship of humanity. We need everyone, not just the wealthy, to steer us away from disaster and toward a new age of discovery. Through websites like this one, people other than just those who have the ear of the wealthy can find a voice and take part in this steering.

    Nicholas Copernicus was not born wealthy, and yet he changed the face of science forever. Spending money on the poor does not conflict with funding space exploration; just the opposite, it gives opportunities to those born in disadvantaged circumstances to reach their full potentials and play crucial roles in this steering. How many minds are we losing because poor children are not getting a chance at higher education? The real waste of money is neither on space nor programs for the poor but on endless wars that indelibly harm our veterans and do little more than enrich a few big corporations. Yes, corporations and the wealthy have a role to play, but first, they must change course by placing planetary wellbeing and consideration for the future ahead of short term profits. Successfully tackling global warming will require all the persistence we can muster.

    I haven't read many scientific essays that tell us to stop and smell the roses, that treasure art and beauty as much as math and science, the way yours does. This is wonderful, well-written, very informative writing based on comprehensive knowledge of and recognition for the many contributors in history who blazed the trail to where we are today. As commenter James Putnam says above, it is a wonderful read.

      I don't know why this comment shows up as Anonymous. I am proud to have written it.

      Laurel Kornfeld