99.54.10 Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees (CodeUFO) 

From: CodeUFO@aol.com
Subject: Re: *CORRECTED* .. Re: Pyramid Measured in Feet/360 degrees
Date: 02/28/02

In a message dated 2/27/02 5:08:34 PM, T0Leo writes:

<< I will continue on .. much more to come .. much more ..

-- Michael L.M. >>

And I for one, Michael, look forward to it. You may be ultimately proven totally wrong and he may be correct, but I have had personal experience with Mark's academic style. It's all from the same book. It's an elitist attitude. This is not to say I reject or am ignorant of scientific methodology. But, unless you have a PhD in Mark's particular "discipline", it appears anything you say or produce is ignored. The word "Science" derives from the LATIN "SCIENTIA" = "KNOWLEDGE". People who truly seek "knowledge" ought to be willing to at least consider evidence which even the rankest amateur puts forward. Many of the world's greatest discoveries have been made by people without the least formal education in the fields of their greatness, people with nothing but innate intelligence, inquisitiveness and perseverance. I don't know what Mark's qualifications are in comparison to yours, Michael, but I suspect you could run rings around most academics in the field of mathematics alone. And you have demonstrated that your abilities run to many other disciplines as well. Don't leave, keep your cool, and you will prevail.

Len >>

Well, I've been following this whole discussion and trying to remain as objective as possible. I haven't entered into the discussion/debate because when it comes to the math, as most you on this list already know, I'm not in the same league as Michael, Luliano, et. al. But I've been following Michael's work for a couple of years now and I do understand the gist of the work and the general underlying concepts.

Len wrote:

<< You [Michael] may be ultimately proven totally wrong and he [Mark] may be correct >>

I suppose that may be possible but what seems undeniably clear to me is that "something" remarkable is being revealed by Michael's work (with all due respect to Munck's pioneering trail blazing). It may, in the end, turn out that Michael's work is showing exactly what he thinks it's showing. I think, also, it's just as possible it will result in a discovery of something other than what he thinks it is right now. Who knows? But who can look at the work and deny that something remarkable is occurring? I'm tempted to list a ton of these "remarkable" correlations right here, but it's all been laid out before so there's no reason to do so. You've all seen it. The point is, SOMETHING is happening here. These correlations can't be one long string of chance coincidences. That, in and of itself, is reason enough for serious investigation and continued work. Michael's work is revealing SOMETHING which, to any reasonable, thinking person, needs to be accounted for.

As for the question of what constitutes "Proof", I do understand both sides in this debate. The idea of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is the whole reason I couldn't sit on a jury to decide the life or death of a person if I'm asked to render my decision based on that idea. I just couldn't do it. I'd need to hear a completely voluntary confession from the accused or see a video tape of the accused actually committing the offense in question. That's also why, for me personally, the jury is still out on the decision of whether or not Michael's work is actually revealing what it "appears" to be revealing. I tend to think it is, but I'm not quite ready to bang the gavel and pronounce my decision. However, I can say one thing for sure at this point: I am convinced the work is showing us something which appears to be so mind boggling that, whatever the "something" turns out to be, it will be paradigm shattering.

But back to the "proof" issue. It gets complex. Even though I "think" I pretty much understand it, I'm not sure I can adequately explain it. There are several elements involved. Four elements, key elements, come to mind: (1) Assumptions, (2) Facts, (3) Evidence, and (4) Proof.

Basically (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), an Assumption is an idea, concocted from a presumably logical analysis of a set of observed phenomena. These phenomena can be said to constitute Evidence which seems to support the Assumption. The Assumption, however, is not considered to be a Fact, regardless of how much evidence there might be to support it. In other words, it is disputable. That's not to say the Assumption is false. It may, indeed, turn out to be a Fact.

A Fact is something that is indisputable by any known means and there is no amount of Evidence which can be brought to bear against it (or, at least, that's the "assumption"! LOL! But you get the point.)

Proof... well, proof, in the scientific arena, has it's own particular definition. It's what's arrived at (or not) through a certain rigorous process generally referred to as "the scientific method". Basically (and, again, I'm not a scientist but this is how I understand it), the Scientific Method goes like this:

A phenomenon is observed but not understood. In order to understand it a "Theory" must be developed. But what is a Theory? Again, in the scientific arena, a Theory has a specific definition which is different, in a way, than the colloquial use of the word. Colloquially we use the word as interchangeable with the word, "idea". You hear it all the time. "I've got a theory about that" or "My theory on that is...". In the Scientific Method, a Theory is more complex. Essentially a Theory is... (let's see if I can remember this from my college days!) ...a Theory is a set of Propositions (basically "assumptions) which purport to explain a phenomenon or set of phenomena. The Theory must be tested to find out whether or not it is valid or "true". This is done by what is called "operationalizing" the Propositions. In other words, the Propositions are linguistic elements, words, sentences, paragraphs, which purport to explain the phenomenon in question. In order to test these Propositions, they must be "operationalized"; turned into... well, something "testable", something that can be subjected to experiment, either mathematically or in lab experiments. A mathematical equation is one example of an operationalized proposition.

Each Proposition is tested individually and the results are analyzed. If the results from the testing of Proposition "A" support the Theory then that Proposition is kept. If the results do not support the Theory, that Proposition is reevaluated. Maybe it just needs to be changed a bit and tested again or maybe the testing showed conclusively that Proposition "A" is totally out of the ball park. If the latter is the case, Proposition "A" is discarded. The same process is followed with each Proposition until all possibilities are exhausted. In the end, what is left is a picture of how well the Theory stood up to the testing. If the Theory still seems reasonably valid, in light of the pros and cons from the testing process, it is changed to more accurately reflect the results of the tests. It may go through many revisions. Eventually the Theory (in whatever form it eventually takes) may be "Proven" to be "true" when and if the end results of the tests yield indisputable supporting data. In that case, what was once a "Theory" now becomes a "Fact". Ideally, the Propositions should never be skewed or "fudged" to fit the Theory (no matter how much in love with the Theory the scientist might be) and the Theory should be malleable enough to change according to the test results. Obviously not many grand scientific Theories have been "Proven" due to the incredible number of variables that need to be taken into account and tested and the time and money involved in doing so.

Having said all that, it seems what the scientific community would like to see, and should be willing to accept for peer review in regards to the ASM, would be a fully delineated Theory, complete with a set of testable Propositions (as defined above) and their respective operationalized counterparts.

In a sense, it seems to me, this is pretty much what Michael has done, albeit perhaps not in such a systematized fashion. He certainly has "operationalized" the propositions (although the propositions may not formally exist in itemized, written form) by turning them into mathematical equations and putting them to the test. And we should remember, too, that even though there are a handful of other interested parties involved in this work, Michael is pretty much on his own. It's not like there's a whole community of capable people out there, each with different areas of expertise, all busily working on the problem. The ASM isn't exactly a small potatoes issue. It's gigantic. And we need to remember also that Michael isn't a formally trained "scientist". On the one hand that might be to his disadvantage in some respects but, on the other hand, I suspect it gives him a great advantage of "Freedom" from the constraints of academically "approved" methods, policies and procedures. He can work outside the box without threatening his position on the faculty. Remember Einstein was a "nut case" working as a clerk upstairs in a patent office when he came up with his Relativity theory. God forbid he should come up with any such ideas as a fully tenured professor.

Len put it simply:

<< Many of the world's greatest discoveries have been made by people without the least formal education in the fields of their greatness, people with nothing but innate intelligence, inquisitiveness and perseverance. >>

None of what I said here should be misconstrued to imply that I'm not interested in Mark's work. On the contrary. It looks very interesting and I'm going to try to keep up with it and see where it goes. There's room enough for everyone, who has the ability, to pursue the great mysteries of the Universe each in his/her own way. Hopefully, cool heads will prevail and open minds will proceed toward the Truth, whatever that might turn out to be.

-Gary-