X-Message-Number: 19302
From: "George Smith" <>
References: <>
Subject: Round craters on the moon and closed minds in the sciences.
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:39:39 -0700


Thank you for proving my underlying point.

The underlying point was and remains that most modern scientists are MORE
interested in accepting the current paradigm as the "truth" than in
considering alternate and perhaps superior models of reality which can
advance science.

One OTHER scientist in private email to me on Sunday demonstrated to me that
IN A VACUUM the explosion of high speed bodies on the moon would
consistently create spherical explosions and this would create round

I thanked him.

He did NOT ignore the evidence everyone else did that explosions are often
NOT spherical as demonstrated in Siberia with the Tunguska explosion as well
as nuclear and conventional explosion testing which often exhibits a
"butterfly" and other "shaped" patterns.  No spherical explosion - no round
craters.  This was critical.

Consequently HE was able to address the EVIDENCE which I believed
CONTRADICTED the popular model.

(The "marbles" example, by the way, was one he agreed with me was also

What is the point of all this "lunacy" and how does it relate to cryonics?

To trace this issue to its source, there was an earlier discussion in regard
to the effect of environmentalist extremists' doomsday predictions on the
culture and the influence upon the popular acceptance and support of

My response to the suggestion that criticism of current models should be
ALWAYS considered included the simple idea that most scientists today (as
has been true of most people in general throughout history) seldom are
willing to look for alternate explanations for phenomena once they have
gotten one.

Since the purpose of science is to develop models of reality for prediction
and NOT the pursuit of "truth", the emotional resistance to even considering
other models makes no sense at all.

But it IS VERY emotional, isn't it, gentlemen?

(I thought  #19287: Formula for a Crackpot [Joseph W. Morgan] was a
beautiful example of this kind of emotional nonsense which blocks thinking.
Ad hominem is so tempting when we are upset with those pesky heretics).

NOT ONE PERSON HERE considered whether there might be an alternate
explanation which accounts for ALL the evidence AT LEAST as well as the
"impact crater" model.

(By the way, there is).

EVERYONE simply looked to the authorities, found the standard answers and
said basically, "Well that ends that!  No need to look farther afield.
Phlogiston explains the facts of fire.  No need to consider anything else."

And ONLY TWO PEOPLE in private emails were willing to consider the evidence
(non spherical explosions) which seemed to contradict the authoritarian

I DON'T find that sad or the least bit unexpected.  It was, after all, my

Thank you, one and all for validating the purpose for my off hand example of
the moon craters to discuss the general unwillingness to look at alternative
models.  (I actually have many more apparent huge, physical anomalies which
could be offered, but that seems to distract form the actual issue, doesn't
it?)  When we refuse to consider alternative models, science becomes dogma,
and scientists become priests.

As long as this psychological tendency continues, breakthroughs in the real
world (and not just on the chalk board) will come from OUTSIDE the
cloistered disciplines in EVERY area of science in which new models are
rejected out of hand.

I thank both scientists who privately emailed me on this issue of the
example of the moon.

You are REAL scientists.

For those of you who still don't understand what I have been saying, well
that's completely understandable to me.

I did state I didn't think you would.

I was right.

Just my firm opinion,

George Smith
CI member and Immortalist

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=19302