New Paradigm Q&A: Creating a Science Driver

September 16, 2015

New Paradigm Q&A: Creating a Science Driver

Join us live today at 5 PM eastern for a Q&A session with the LPAC science team. What should a science driver aim for? Does Newton's inverse-square law make Kepler irrelevant? How does Planck's discovery of the quantum relate to Riemann's work? Does money control science today? These and more. Questions? Email [email protected], or include your question in the comments section on YouTube.

Transcript— MEGAN BEETS:  Hello, today is September 16th, 2015.  Welcome to A New Paradigm for Mankind.  My name is Megan Beets and I'm joined today in the studio by my colleagues from the Basement. We are going to be taking your questions up today.  I want to start out though a little bit in the context: this week and the coming weeks are momentous for mankind.

This Monday Lyndon LaRouche said, on the weekly discussion with the Policy Committee, that what he's looking at in the world is a remarkable and completely unprecedented change in direction in the global situation.  And he emphasized that you don't know this from details, or facts, or explaining or picking this fact or that fact.  The process of the direction of mankind is currently undergoing a profound change in direction, which is heading toward the sudden ouster of Obama, and the sudden, and completely necessary, and appropriate, shutting-down of the global empire, that's been built on the Wall Street system.

As he was making these comments, two related things were occurring in Manhattan.  Number one, a press conference by former US Senator Mike Gravel, who had the courage in the 1970s to read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record, gave a press conference at the UN Press Club, stating very unequivocally that there was no solution inside the United States, and that if we want to move forward, we have to look to cooperation with China, as the model.

The second thing, more generally, is that at this moment the leadership of the world is gathering in Manhattan, as the UN General Assembly gets underway.  This is occurring for the rest of the month of September.  The heads of state will be coming into New York toward the end of the month.  Now this is occurring just as President Putin of Russia, in cooperation with Xi Jinping of China, has just taken the decision to make a profound change in the dynamic of the global situation, which was displayed, number one, at Putin's participation in the VJ-Day parade in China, that occurred a couple of weeks ago.

And secondly, and importantly, in the ongoing and building intervention of Russia into the very serious situation in Syria, obviously making a very strong statement and challenge to the West to end the terrorism of ISIS, which Obama and his Saudi allies have been supporting.

And then secondly, we see this in the transformation coming out of Germany, in their profound change of direction, in reaction to the growing refugee crisis, with millions and millions of people pouring into Europe because of the wars that Obama has started.

So these things are indications of a completely different dynamic, and following his statements on Monday with the Policy Committee, yesterday in discussion with some of his associates, Mr. LaRouche expanded that, added to that, and opened his remarks with this statement:

"I've decided we have to exercise a little more precision in what stands before us.  The problem is, that most of our people believe in mathematics, and mathematics has been a force of destruction in the 20th Century, and what has been added so far in this New Century.  And this comes to a point that if we applied an algebraic form of policy making, we would doom ourselves to a great catastrophe.  Because without that change, that qualification, mankind does not have competent scientific knowledge of the type which is needed."

Now he pointed in that context to the role of Bernhard Riemann, which we'll touch on a little bit today.  And I think that's the point, that's the challenge to all of us that he made. If we don't get this distinction between science and mathematics, and begin to act, rather than acting on the practicality of the moment, instead, acting human, and creating a new future for mankind, we stand to lose this incredible opportunity before us.

That's the context of today's discussion, and it's the context in which I'm going to pose the first question, which I think is appropriate for Mr. LaRouche's remarks.  This question was sent in via e-mail from Peter in Germany, and it's on the topic of a science-driver program.  He says:

How should one think about defining a science-driver program for a nation, or for the planet?  Probably one determinant is its ability to integrate as many scientific frontiers as possible: biophysics, atomic physics, etc., within a unified mission.  We would obviously want to have the greatest effect in terms of raising the potential population density, but how do you forecast the potential effect of something you haven't actualized yet? The land-bridge as a driver, for example, is probably too close technologically, because we pretty much already know the technology needed, and just need to build it."  He adds, "Although the idea of finally ending poverty forever is a very noble, necessary and beautiful mission.  On the other hand, a manned-mission to Alpha Centauri, the next Solar System, would be too far away, technologically, culturally, etc.  So again, how must we think to define a science-driver program?  How do we master the unknown, our own yet to be experienced future?"

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I could say a few things to open up. The issue is really, how do you define mankind, the nature of mankind?  We're talking about a science-driver.  I think it's probably worth just making a distinction between what you might call a technology-driver, what you might call infrastructure-driver, economy-driver, versus science-driver.

It's one thing to say that we can create a program that can accelerate the ability to have more precise engineering, to do more advanced production capabilities for something.  That's good, that's an important part of your economy.  But there is something unique, and this is something Mr. LaRouche has obviously spent a lot of his life working on, and identifying, and understanding.  There is something unique about mankind's ability to create fundamentally new states of the human species.

He's recently focused on the polemic of the difference of mankind versus animals.  You can look at, any animal species has certain fixed characteristics that are intrinsic to that species. You might get change over evolutionary time, but any one species, any one animal species has certain fixed characteristics, the ecology, the way it relates to the environment, the way it relates to the Universe, more generally, you could say.  Although for most animals, their universe is pretty limited in the experience on Earth.

But mankind is the only species that we know of that's demonstrated an ability to fundamentally change how it relates to the Universe in the most fundamental way.  And these changes don't come from just innovation or technology, but something we call fundamental discovery of principle.  A fundamental discovery of the principles underlying the organization of the Universe. Mankind, when making such discoveries, really changes his existence to a higher state in the Universe.  So when we talk about science-driver, Mr. LaRouche talks about science-driver, that's what we're really talking about.  How do we shift human society to a completely new creative state that hasn't existed yet?

Just to address some of the aspects that were put into the question, it is also worth emphasizing Mr. LaRouche's recent focus on the Franklin Roosevelt precedent for what we need to do today.  That encapsulates a lot of the type of the quality of shift that we need to make right now to get through the present situation, and to move into the future.  Roosevelt had major infrastructure projects.  He had to utilize existing technologies, upgrade the quality of the land area, upgrade the quality of the national territory.  He had programs to uplift the labor force, to educate people, to develop skilled labor capabilities, which didn't exist yet.  These were all aspects of uplifting the whole economy.  But you really saw also, especially with the war effort in particular, which gave a certain extra drive to his whole program, he had the Manhattan Project, which was a fundamental, that was a science-driver program.  We were going into completely new areas about how the Universe fundamentally operates, and engaging in a crash-program to develop new fundamental understandings into that, and then the ability to then utilize that in the economy and society more generally.  So it's worth seeing that as a whole package.  We need the World Land-Bridge program.  We need a new Franklin Roosevelt style program for the United States.  But we also need that to be tied to and subsumed by a fundamental science-driver program that's pursuing the next level of mankind's relation to the Universe.

There's a number of things that can be said on that.  One thing in particular that we've been looking at, that I think is an aspect of this, is this whole picture of the Galaxy, this question of this galactic system that we're a part of.  We have not yet had the kind of breakthrough in our understanding of the Galaxy that Kepler gave mankind for our understanding of the Solar System.  We're part of this much larger system that subsumes the Sun, subsumes the Solar System, subsumes the Earth, and we don't know how it operates.  We don't know what principles govern how it functions, how it was created, how it evolved, how it developed, how it maintains its existence, where it's going. So we're operating within the subsuming system which we're presently ignorant of.  Who knows what kind of capabilities that could give mankind in making a fundamental breakthrough of principle.  What are the higher order organizing principles of the Universe that govern our galactic system — Galaxies, for example.

It's these types of areas that define the frontiers, not just doing it from the standpoint of, well what new technology do we want that can make your day-to-day life better, or something. We might get that as an effect, but that's an effect, it's a shadow of a truly creative pursuit of what's the higher order understanding of the fundamental organization of the Universe. How can we change mankind's existence, as a species, fundamentally, by moving mankind into coherence with a higher order understanding of the Universe?  That's what we want to be thinking about: mankind as a uniquely creative species that creates its own future, that doesn't just extrapolate the past into the future, but creates a fundamental new state of existence of the human species.  If we're not doing that, we're not being what we are.  We're not being human.

This Galaxy perspective defines one aspect of the real frontiers of science, but there are a lot of other areas we're obviously working on.  But that's a key element that we have before us that can fundamentally transform how mankind, not only sees himself in the Universe, but how he actually exists in the Universe.

JASON ROSS:  There are a couple different aspects to it, too.  There are science-drivers as created through culture, and also through Government.  For example, the Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, a lot of the follow-up work on nuclear processes here in the US, this was done through the support of the Government.  Einstein's work in developing E=mc^2, etc., was not. He was working as a patent clerk.  Sometimes you are at a certain point where it's clear enough what kinds of applications could be expected in the future.

Fusion is one of them, where we've got enough of a start to know some reasonable ideas about what would happen in a fusion economy, and so we can say, "Wow, that's fantastic, we should absolutely do that, and we should make the financing available to make that happen." - which we have certainly not been doing.  On the other hand, you get individuals, you get people who actually create this.  Everyone has a history, but also people take an individual initiative to make something happen.  Cusa did that. Kepler did that.  Einstein and Planck, they were in a culture that made it easier for them to do that.  They did it, though.

The other hand of things is culture itself.  A science-driver program is essential, so is a culture-driver program.  I don't know if these things happen on their own.  They don't.  This is something that people are self-conscious of when they are creating culture, these great composers.  They had a sense of what they were doing.  They knew they were doing something totally new.  You want to talk about problems in science?  Science looks great compared to the course that culture has taken over the past 120 years.  You say, "Oh, good, we get new technologies and things.  We're still finding out.  We're making these new astronomical observations.  We figured out something new about the nucleus."  That's still happening. Compare that to what you get in music, or lousy movies, or plays that just aren't really any good at all.  You wish there was something out there to really like.  I don't know how to make that happen.  That's something to think about too.  There's a science-driver, but how do you make a cultural-driver?

LIONA FAN-CHIANG:  The other thing is that they're not disconnected.  What comes to mind is the Renaissance, because in the Renaissance you had all of those.  You had a technology-driver, you had a science-driver, and an artistic major shift, but all of it was driven by a change in how human beings think about themselves.  That was reflected in all.  You had the beginning of basically anatomy, the beginnings of the science of the human body, and you saw that in painting, and so on.

Peter mentioned this as that going to another star, for example, it's less of a technology issue.  It is a technology issue, but it's one of those things you could probably solve. It's much more of a cultural issue.  The place that you have to make the most advance is the cultural question, and the scientific-driver, but I do think that's going to be a more difficult one to truly create an efficient driver program on.

ROSS:  In that context it's worth mentioning the real growth of instrument making and classical musical work in China.

FAN-CHIANG:  Well China is a really great example.  You see there what you were describing with FDR.  FDR also had a cultural program, I don't know if you knew that.  You see that there's an incredible number of fusion engineers being trained, incredible number of artists being trained, and it's all driven by a certain necessity.  You get to a point where you don't have a choice. You're going to try to grab every person you can and you're going to educate them in order to create the requirements for what you want to accomplish.

BEETS:  Then it just comes down to what you opened with, Ben.  Now we've been through a hundred or more years of total brainwashing of the United States and European populations to just confine thinking to the idea of current experience and what can be demonstrated from practical proof, as opposed to admitting the reality of new notions of the human mind, notions which don't come from experience.  Not to repeat too much, but obviously that sort of intonation for a true experience of something which is yet to be, is trained in music, and it's also trained in valid scientific method, and the real policy fight has to be on that, that that's human, that's what we do uniquely, and that's what all these advancements in our capabilities follow in the wake of that kind of frontier.

Our second question is on the subject of Kepler and Newton, and it comes via YouTube from Oswaldo.  The question is:

"Why didn't Kepler derive Newton's gravitational law, which is easily obtained from algebraic manipulation of his three laws by constraining the orbits to circles and planets to point masses moving along the center of mass?  Would it be that they represent two different dynamics?  We know that if Newton's gravitational law is applied to three bodies to determine the resultant forces at specific distances, this takes you to a complex mathematical solution, the so-called three-body problem for three masses, which I suppose will make the mathematical solution even more complex.  But acknowledging that force is a more ontological concept than distances, areas, and velocities, wouldn't this mean that Kepler's work hasn't yet come to an end?"

ROSS:  There's a couple of questions there.  That's a really good question.  That's one that comes up when you start looking through things.  You look at what Kepler did.  You look at Newton getting all the credit for gravitation and figuring out.  He was the guy, supposedly, who first brought physics into making modern physics.  It was Kepler.  Let's first directly answer that question about what's the difference between Kepler and then Newton's gravitation law.  And then let's take a step back and look at what made Kepler do what he did to answer the final part of: isn't Kepler still needed today?

As the question says, yes, if you take Kepler's third law, if you combine that with how centrifugal acceleration works, which would be, if you've got a rock hanging on a string, and you're spinning it around like this, the string is holding the rock in by a certain amount.  And that depends on how fast the rock's going around and how long the string is, how big a circle it's moving in.  If you stick those two together, you get the inverse square law, or gravitational force.  Kepler did not do that, that's true.  Although I think some people might be shocked to hear what Kepler did have to say about gravity.

I'll read a couple of quotes from his New Astronomy. First off, before he wrote the New Astronomy, here's some of his thinking about it in a letter in 1605 to a friend of his. He's talking about how stones are pulled towards the Earth to debate an idea that the Aristotelians had, that everything falls towards the Earth because the Earth is at the center of the Universe.  So the center of the Earth, being that point at the middle of everything, all rocks and trees, anything that falls to the ground, it's actually falling towards that point, because everything wants to reach the center of the Universe, because they somehow know where that is.  Kepler thought that was idiotic, and he was discussing that they don't fall towards the center of the Earth because it's some point, because there's something there called the Earth.  Here's what he said in a letter in 1605, about a rock above the Earth:

"Not only does the stone approach the Earth, but the Earth also approaches the stone, and they divide the space between them in the inverse ratio of their weights."

That is exactly what somebody would say today about gravity. Let me quote Kepler.  He's got more to say about why points don't matter, in attacking the Aristotelians.  They really did have this idea of gravitation, that either everything was trying to reach towards the center of the Earth, or everything was trying to get away from the extremities of the Universe, and that somehow trying to avoid the edge of the Universe, it all ended up coming towards the center.  Kepler didn't think much of that.  He said, here's what gravity is, according to Kepler, in the introduction to his New Astronomy.  He said:

"Gravity is a mutual corporeal disposition among kindred bodies to unite or join together.  Thus the Earth attracts a stone much more than the stone seeks the Earth."

This was not commonly-held belief at the time.  And he says that the magnetic faculty is another example of this sort. Kepler says:

"If the Earth were not round, heavy bodies would not be drawn in straight lines towards the middle of the Earth, but would be drawn towards different points from different sides."

And that's true.  If you stand at a different place on the Earth, and let a string hang straight down and look where all those points are pointing, they don't all point at the center of the Earth.  Because of mountains, different deposits, different densities in different places.  So there's Kepler with that.  He says:

"If two stones were set near another in someplace in the world, or in the Universe, outside the sphere of influence of a third kindred body, these stones, like two magnetic bodies, would come together in an intermediate place, each approaching the other by an interval proportional to the bulk of the other."

This one weighs four times as much as this. It will move one-fourth as much, and this one will move four times as much. That's exactly what anyone would say today.  Regarding the tides, he says:

"Why do we have tides?  Because the Moon is pulling on the water."  He said:

"If the Earth should cease to attract its waters to itself, why the sea water would all be lifted up and would flow onto the Moon."

He's clearly got ideas about that.  He doesn't put things together in the way that is later attributed to Newton, for a couple of reasons.  One is not having an understanding of the centrifugal acceleration, and Kepler had a different idea of inertia.  Those are kind of technical things, but those are specific differences, especially the inertia question, is a difference in Kepler's physics and what we would say today.  Now that doesn't mean Kepler was wrong in the bigger sense, or that he was a failure.

Nobody so far has yet known everything, so I don't think we can hold it against Kepler that he didn't know everything.  But his approach has actually not been superseded, it's not out of date, it's not unnecessary today.  In fact, today's scientists have a lot to learn from Kepler.  Let's talk about what made him do what he did.

In his first major book, The Secret of the Universe, the Mysterium Cosmographicum, he says in his introduction, and he came back to it, he said look at what Plato told the Greeks. There was a plague in Delos, there was this Delian Riddle, about how to double the volume of an altar.  Plato had said:

"Look, the gods didn't bring on this plague, and ask you to solve this geometry problem, because they cared about the size of an altar, it was because if you would stop warring and fighting and doing all that, and think instead about discovery, you'll be better off."

That's the lesson that the Greeks were supposed to learn. Kepler says, that's what he says about, I'm going to read a significant quote here from the dedication to this book of his, the Mysterium Cosmographicum.  He talks about why this is such a special thing that he has done.  He says:

"Do you want something bulky?  Nothing in the whole world is greater, or more ample than this."

This is the book where he talks about why there are the six planets that were known in his day, why they had the distances that they did, and why they moved the way that they do.  He talks about how the Sun is the cause of their motions, and that closer to the Sun they move faster.  So in this book he's saying in dedicating it:

"Do you want something important?  Nothing is more precious, nothing more splendid than this, in the brilliant temple of God. Do you wish to know something secret?  Nothing in the nature of things is, or has been, more closely concealed.  The only thing in which it does not satisfy everybody, is that its usefulness is not so clear to the unreflecting.  Yet, here we are concerned with the book of nature, so greatly celebrated in sacred writings.  It is in this, the book of nature, that Paul proposes to the Gentiles that they should contemplate God, like the Sun in water or in a mirror.  Why then as Christians should we take any less the light in its contemplation?  Since it is for us with true worship to honor God, to venerate him, to wonder at him. What does science have to do with worshiping God?"  He says, "The more rightly we understand the nature and scope of what our God has founded, the more devoted the spirit in which that is done. How many indeed are the hymns which were sung to the creator, the true God, by the true worshiper of God, David, in which he draws arguments from the marvels of the heavens.  The heavens are telling, says he, the glory of God.  I shall see thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the Moon and stars, which thou hast created. Great is our Lord, and great is his excellence, who numbers the multitude of the stars and calls them all by name.  Elsewhere, full of spirit, full of holy joy, David exclaims and acclaims the very Universe.  Praise the Lord, ye heavens, praise him, ye Sun and Moon, etc."

Kepler says, well how could the Sun and the Moon praise God? He's got an answer.  He says:

"What voice has the heaven?  What voice have the stars to praise God as man does?  Unless, when they supply men with cause to praise God, they themselves are said to praise God, by bringing us to discover how things work, they have their role in praising God,"  he says.

Then he says, in thinking about creation, he says:

"We perceive how God, like one of our own architects, approach the task of constructing the Universe, with order and pattern, and laid out the individual parts accordingly, as if it were not art which imitated nature, but God himself had looked to the mode of building of man who was to be."

That Kepler's view here, that God creating the Universe, looked to the mode of building of man, who was to be.  But what do we see as beauty?  What do we see as reason?  That is going to occur in an analogous way in the way the Universe is constructed. There's something about the way our minds operate, between the human soul's understanding, and the way the Universe is constructed.

That's a very powerful concept, one which I think is not even considered today.  I think maybe that's enough quoting Kepler.  At the end he talks about people who aren't able to appreciate this kind of work, or like people who don't enjoy dessert.  He says if you're looking at these little things, fine, you'll miss out, but this is for the people who, yeah.  (pause) Then he says:

"if you really think about it, you will say, 'happy the souls whose first concern it was to gain this knowledge and soar to heavenly homes.'  And therefore, you will begin to despise what once you thought most important.  Value only those works of God, and derive pure and sincere delight at last from these studies.  Accordingly, let these and like occupations be despised by whoever wishes, and as much as they wish, and let them seek for themselves everywhere profit, wealth, and treasures.  For astronomers, let it be glory enough that they write for philosophers, not for pettifoggers, for kings, not shepherds.  I predict without dismay that there will nevertheless be men who will draw from here solace for their old age.  Such men indeed, who have conducted not only great offices, but also themselves in such a way that free from the remorse of conscience, they can be fit to enjoy these delights."

He also has a similar answer in his New Astronomy about people who say, "Who cares about any of this stuff?"  He says, well, if you can't appreciate it, that's fine, but for those who want to come to a better understanding about how the Universe is created, how God thinks.  That's the level that Kepler put his thinking on.  This is the motive.  This is underlying his view, that as a follower of Nicholas of Cusa, he absolutely felt that humans are made in the image of God.  So, do we need Kepler today?  Do we need this approach today?  Is it old-fashioned? No, it's certainly not old fashioned.

One more thing to bring up from the New Astronomy is that, yes, Kepler succeeded in creating elliptical orbits with the Sun at one of the foci of the ellipse, which sweep out equal areas in equal times.  All that's true.  That's how planets move.  That tells you what occurs.  But here's the big key.  In doing that, he make fun of his one-time employer, Tycho Brahe, in a friendly way, who had great observations, spent years and years on this private island of his, where he had all these assistants, he's looking at where the planets are all the time, he's trying to work out what makes them move, and despite all that great data, his thinking is no better than anyone else's.  Great data doesn't make a great thinker.

So Tycho Brahe puts a bunch of circles on top of circles, on top of circles, on top of circles, and tries to explain how the planets move by a combination of circles, which move around, some of them, points that nothing's at.  He says the Sun moves around the Earth.  Then he says the planets move around the Sun.  But actually a point near the Sun, that nothing's at.  They then have two more little circles that they move on, on that circle around the Sun, around the Earth.  That's Kepler's boss, Tycho.  So Kepler says, well, it's a real shame, that despite, let me read the exact quote.  He says:

"Wonderful is your daring, oh Brahe, and sweet your labor, even though you preferred not to stray from received opinion."

So what did Kepler do that was different?  He said, look, you can make a model that will match any appearances, if you want to.  You keep working harder at it, if you add more and more and more circles.  Sure, you'll be able to cause the error to retreat till you can't see it anymore.  Does that mean that you're getting closer to the truth?  Does adding more of those circles, which reduces the error, and makes the model better, in terms of matching observations, does that mean it's better in terms of being more truthful?  No way!  How many circles are there in Kepler's model?  Zero!  The planets don't even move in circles. They move in another shape altogether, and there's a force at play, that's causing this to occur.  There are a lot of fields right now that are just dying that are just begging for a new Kepler to come along, to turn the complication of the huge number of the sub-atomic particles that supposedly exist.  Just among the quarks, there's thirty-six quarks, anti-quarks, they'll come in three colors.  There's thirty-six right there, just to make up protons and neutrons and some other things.

Or, in astronomy today, these are fields where breakthroughs are just waiting to happen, and they're going to be simplifying breakthroughs, not increasing complexity.  Resolutions will have the form that are reasonable to us.  They're not going to be mathematical.  I think we'll deal some more on that, too.

BEETS:  Our next questioner, or a comment, comes via e-mail from Judy, and she quotes Riemann from his Habilitation Dissertation:

"The question of the validity of the hypotheses of geometry in the infinitely small is bound up with the question of the basis of the metric relations of space.  In this last question, which we may still regard as belonging to the doctrine of space, is found the application of the remark made above, that in a discrete manifold, the basis of its metric relations is given in the notion of it.  While in a continuous manifold, the spaces must come from outside.  Either, therefore, the reality which underlies space must form a discrete manifold, or we must seek the basis of its metric relations outside it, in binding forces which act upon it."  And she says, "But, in case of the quantum, it is both at the same time."

ROSS:  So, both what?  You're probably watching, in case you weren't able to follow that quote, or weren't that familiar with it.  This quote's from the end of Riemann's Habilitation Dissertation.  So again, do things here.  There is something specific to say about this, but this is an opportunity to get more at what you're bringing up about the point LaRouche was making last night, about the importance of Riemann in that kind of thinking.  At the end of Riemann's Habilitation Dissertation, he said that, very briefly, the question is between discrete and continuous.

A manifold is continuous when, between any two spots, you can always find something in the middle.  We would say that the position along the edge of a paper is continuous, because any two points, even if they are very close, there's always another point in the middle, if we don't get down to the scale of atoms, and things like that.  There's a geometric concept.

Something that's discrete would be the spots on a chess board, for example, between two squares, there's no square in the middle.  It's either here, and then all of a sudden, it's somewhere else, and there's nothing of that sort in between them. That's discrete.

In the case of the quantum, the quantum came up.  This was the discovery of Planck in 1900, that really got emphasized and expanded by Einstein in 1905, whereby, the brightness of light is not continuous.  He said, how much light is coming out of some light source per second, and you're able to measure that exact amount of energy, and you kept measuring it, you'd get maybe ten units of energy, then eleven, nine, ten again.  You'd never get ten and a half.  You'd never get 10.237, or something like that. Light comes in photons, in pieces, although it still acts like a wave.  In that sense light is discrete, but on the other, the basis of its metric relations comes from outside it.

I'm not entirely sure, I think what the question is getting at, is that the quantum, although it's discrete, finds its basis, not in just saying something like, we're going to measure everything to the nearest inch, but in those forces that operate upon space, that has a physical basis.  I think that's what Riemann would have expected, if space was discrete.  It would have had to have a physical basis.  I think there is no other way that could have been considered for Riemann.

Let's back that up and take it a little bit more generally. And we talked about this.  This paper of Riemann is so important because in a more condensed way than other discoveries of the past, of the great breakthroughs of, well actually, maybe it's similar to Cusa.  But compared to like Kepler, Leibniz, Gauss, Fermat, what Riemann does in this work is to directly address discovery process itself, in a very, very direct way.  The topic is geometry.

He opens up, he says, ever since Euclid, we've had assumptions about space, and doing geometry, and we never really asked whether those assumptions are true, if they're compatible, or how we would even come to decide whether they were true.  We didn't even think about it.  We just took some assumptions.  They don't seem incredibly wrong.  You do the constructions in Euclid's book.  You do get an angle that's cut in half.  You do make a rectangle, or whatever, it all works.  But he says, we never looked at this.

So he says, what shape might space have?  Is it flat like Euclid says?  Do all triangles add up to 180º?  There's a lot of other kinds of ways space could be.  And he goes through other ways that space could be curved.  Triangles might all have more than 180º, and the bigger the triangle, the more the degrees. That would be a constantly curved space.  Maybe it's different, maybe depending on where you are, space has a different shape. And he says that among all these possibilities, how do we decide? Not by just saying what shape space has.  Do some physics.

He ends his paper by saying, because he's in the math department, he says, well, we're going to have to pack up our bags and go to the physics department, if we want answers to any of these questions, because we're not going to figure it out here.  Geometry is a physical science, and knowledge comes from experiment, from discovery, from creating new concepts, not from deriving things from what we already knew, which is the Euclid method.

What do you get from going through Euclid's book?  Well, if you already know some things, you can derive new things, that you know, because you arrived at them in a very precise and logical way, so you can trust your conclusions.  Where do the new basic ideas come from?  You'll never get any.  You'll never be creative if you think like Euclid.  If you're totally logical, you're never going to discover anything new, and you'll be a very unpleasant person to spend time with, too.  So that's what Riemann does in this paper.

Now just a couple other things about Riemann.  In 1851, this might not sound revolutionary, but he wrote a paper, his doctoral thesis, about Functions of a Complex Variable.  That sounds very mathematical, doesn't it, Functions of a Complex Variable?  His key idea in that paper is that things exist, even though you can't give them names, even though you can't describe them in terms of what you already know.  He says, we can talk about mathematical functions, even if we can't write them down.  We can talk about how they work, what's the geometry behind them.  And he develops a whole Analysis Situs.  He develops a whole underlying geometry behind functions that people didn't see was there before, but how to explain them, to not just being some symbols on a piece of paper, like what Gauss did with the complex domain, making the square root of negative one something physical.

And then in 1857, he writes a paper on Abelian Functions, where he goes through, in even more detail, how it is that, using what he calls, Dirichlet's principle, it's possible to know something by what it does.  Again, even if you can't put it into words right now.  And isn't that what a new discovery is?  You've got something.  You can't describe it in terms of the past.  It has to get a new name.

The quantum, that was a new concept.  This is something that's new.  What Kepler did in astronomy needed a whole new language for it.  Riemann, even in his work that might seem like it's more applied on specific topics, is that overall idea of his, that you have got to be free from any sort of a priori assumptions, from any pre-given assumptions, from any types of thinking that are preordained, as the only way to go, and you have got to be able to understand things in terms of not what they do.

A concept, that Lyndon LaRouche has liked to use about this, is about transitive verbs.  That's the most basic component of existence.  Doing, new concepts of things that cause things to occur, doings, transitive verbs.  And that's the basis even in this paper on a seemingly different field.  It's incredibly important, LaRouche's, I don't think he'd feel you could overemphasize the importance of what Riemann's done.  And I definitely didn't convey it all right now.  I know that there's more there to figure out about what he did, too.

One last thing about it is, that in this paper, the question was about, Habilitation Dissertation, about the shape of space, Judy had quoted this, Riemann says:

"Either the reality, which underlies space, must form a discrete manifold, or it must seek a basis of its metric relations, the basis of the shape of space, outside space, in binding forces, which act upon it."

Which that is exactly what Einstein's relativity does, where the shape of space is given, not by something about space, but about a physical principle.  What's he saying there?  The basis of understanding, and implicitly the basis of geometry of the Universe, you can't separate that from principles that we discover in order to better understand and act on it.  That in a certain way, that's actually what the Universe is made out of.

FAN-CHIANG:  It's also what Kepler does.  Kepler redefines geometry, per se, in terms of colligating forces, but to Kepler, it's funny because people always say that Kepler discovered that planets travel on the ellipse.  He doesn't care at all whether it travels on an ellipse, or if it traveled on a completely different shape.  He was only concerned that it followed the fact that the planets responded according to their relationship to the Sun, and to each other.  That was it, and to him, it was that shape which did that, and was not a geometrical shape, in other words.  An ellipse is a geometrical shape, that you draw on a piece of paper, and it exists at one moment, as a geometrical shape.  Planets are not an ellipse.  They may eventually search, trace out an ellipse, but that's not the generating aspect. Generating aspect is the fact that they are dynamic and they undergo physical forces.  By then Kepler saw that according to this type of geometry according to physics, this was, he called, the straightest path.

ROSS:  Right, it's the simple result of that, because after he showed that Mars is definitely not moving in a circle, there is no way it's a circle, what do you do next?  Some people have the idea that Kepler tried out different shapes, maybe it was a rectangle?  No, that didn't work.  Maybe it was a triangle?  No. How about an ellipse?  Oh, what do you know, that worked just great.  That's not how it happened at all — at all!  First he combined ideas about how the speed would change based on its motion with the Sun, with another physical hypothesis he had about magnetism, about how the planet would be moving away and closer to the Sun, and the result of that, as you put it, the straight line that that creates, is an ellipse.  But it wasn't the ellipse shape.  It does happen to be a shape that has a simple name, but it didn't (cross-talk) ...

FAN-CHIANG:  Right, it could have come out to be shape that didn't have a simple name.

ROSS:  And he would have been fine with that.  And he would have actually found it, unlike someone who was trying different shapes.

FAN-CHIANG:  That's true. That's also another example of not being able to use the language you had.  For people who read the New Astronomy, it's very clear that, at first very difficult to read, and it almost sounds like somebody who's reading equations, where the equations had never been written before.  In other words, the language he's speaking does not have a mathematics for it yet, does not have any formal mechanism.  He doesn't have a formality to use yet.  But if you examine it, you see, OK. Actually what he's describing is what you do in calculus. Calculus hadn't been invented yet.  In fact, he's inventing calculus, because he's dealing with something, whose primary characteristic is change. And so you take something, which you know, this changes this way at every moment; and then you ask, what changes this way at every moment?  Which is the basic definition of an integral, but those had not been created yet. So he technically created the first integral ever.

ROSS:  That's a good way to put it.

FAN-CHIANG: To create that mathematical, so-called, language, to deal with the fact that it fundamentally, the Universe, or physical principles, are based on change.

ROSS:  Even when he's finally done with everything, there's still a math problem.  He said, where will the planet be at exactly this time, you can approximate it, but you can't solve that equation.

FAN-CHIANG:  You could write it in a mathematical equation. The Kepler problem it's still called.

BEETS:  We got a question in via e-mail from Jonathan, who says:

"Hello, all.  A lot of Americans find it hard to believe that the scientific community would lie about man-made global warming.  Many believe that scientists have integrity and would lose their jobs if they lied, or that it's a crazy conspiracy theory, and would never happen.  The mainstream media, and the educational system tells us every year that man is causing the world to get too hot, with its emissions of too much CO2.  So my question is, can you tell me who has corrupted and bought out the scientific community?

DENISTON:  I could say a few things.  The money is clear. There's tons of money in the scientific domain.  The running joke is that if you want to get your paper published, you have to put something in about how it's going to affect climate change, or if you're doing a study on ...

ROSS:  How ladies' fashions in Guatemala have been influenced by climate change.

DENISTON:  Automatic publishing your paper right there (cross-talk) ... Another thing just to put out, it's a myth that the so-called scientific community is even in total consensus on this.  That should just be stated aside from all the fraud, and people who are getting bought off, and going along with this stuff.  You hear in the media, you hear these people claiming 97% consensus, 98% consensus, and those come from actual studies that were done.

People wrote a paper, they did a study, they reviewed supposedly thousands of abstracts, and said, of the scientific literature that's been published on the subject, how many agree with this issue.  Oh, it's 97%.  Then some people, who had some brains, looked at those studies, and looked at the papers they claimed, and they said, well the consensus is, to actually be clear on what we are talking about, 97% of these papers agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and therefore human CO2 emissions can have an effect on the atmosphere.

There was absolutely not 97% consensus saying that the warming of the past century is predominantly caused by what mankind has done, and mankind's continued activity is going to have catastrophic effects.  Those are very different things. It's one thing to say, we might cause the temperature to raise a tenth of a degree in the next century.  OK, who cares?  That's not going to melt the ice-caps.  It's not a crisis.  There is a consensus that CO2 is greenhouse gas and we're putting it in the atmosphere.  That's not a revelation.  That's not a surprise.

On this particular study, it's more in the range of 30% of people who actually agree that this is some catastrophe we need to deal with immediately.  So that should just be put on the table to clarify the issue.  There is not even in the so-called scientific community, not a 100% clear agreement that our actions are catastrophic and destroying the planet.  We need to have dramatic changes of our actions immediately.  Because that's what we're told.  That's what you're being told.  We're being told that scientists are saying that.  That's not true.  That's a lie.

To get at the deeper issue, our society has gone through a cultural paradigm shift.  We're living in a society where the predominant cultural belief is coherent with this whole green movement idea.  There's an idea, a fundamental, emotional conception that's taken root in society, that mankind's inherent activity, mankind's progress, scientific and technological development is inherently wrong, and is inherently going to bring us to destruction.  Whether it's putting a hole in the ozone, whether it's using up all the resources, whether it's causing the planet to warm, it's just one after the other.  It all finds a root in this green ideology, which is, and we've documented this through and through.

EIR just put out a special report on this subject entitled, Global Warming is Population Reduction, not Science, and you can find information for it on this website, on the EIR website.  You should buy a copy.  You should read it.  You should study it. Because we present there very clearly the facts on so-called climate change itself, the reality that there is not clear evidence that CO2 is some major driver of the climate.  Many other factors are the predominant drivers of the climate.

But more importantly, this comes from a British Malthusian population-reduction ideology.  That's where this comes from. Those are the people that founded the whole so-called environmentalist movement.  This is the modern day Zeus.  They're using any excuse they can, and every year it's one after the next, because they believe that there should be something on the order of one billion people on the planet, and most of those people should be peasants, who Prince Philip might go visit from his car, or watch from afar, and say the racist things he tends to say off-hand all the time to them as he drives by.

That's the world view that this comes from.  That's the origins, and the real ideology, and the real strategic motivation of this whole climate change scare.  So, they dump a bunch of money in it.  People today that have the title of a scientist, there not all of a sudden, they're not Jesus Christ, or something.  A lot of these guys go where the money is, and they try and maintain their careers, and they try and get papers published, and they go with the flow.  We need people who have the guts to actually stand up on truth and authority, and the people who do that get attacked, big time.  That's the environment we're dealing with.  Peoples' careers get ruined. They can't find jobs.  If you become a denier.

FAN-CHIANG:  You end up on the list.

DENISTON:  You end up on a list.  There's open discussion about whether or not they could create laws where you could take legal action against people who are deniers.

ROSS:  They might be the next drone targets.

DENISTON:  It's really an insane environment that's been created, but it needs to be defeated, because the reality is that human existence depends upon progress.  We need scientific advancement.  We need economic development.  We have to progress.

I think it's interesting that, just to throw this in there, last week Jerry Brown, this nut-job, who got thrown into the Governorship of California, a total disgrace to his father, he just suffered a major defeat on his landmark climate change bill, where he was trying to get an 80% reduction of CO2 emissions, greenhouse emissions, 80% below what they were in 1990, achieve that by 2050.  That was the bill he was pushing for.  Twenty-one Democrats in California, of all places, it's not Texas, this is California, twenty-one Democrats broke with Brown, and they voted with the Republicans to defeat this bill.

Who were these Democrats?  They represented poor, middle class, lower class regions of the state.  They're saying, we're sick of your all high and mighty green morality.  We need economic growth.  We need to support our people here.  And I think that signifies a good clear dividing line on where the real issue lies.  If you're going to fight for the development for your people, your population, your constituents, improve people. Is that your priority, or maintaining some facade that you're for the environment.  You're going to go with all this crap, while the people of California, and other places, are just suffering under these policies, and especially in the current economic depression.

So I encourage people to get the Report.  The Report has extensive documentation on the science, what they call science, which is mostly just lying.  It makes it easier for them.  They just make stuff up and makes their case quicker.  But then the real strategic motivation, the real policy behind this.  You should get that.  You should give it to other people.  You should circulate it.  This is a real battleground right now.

BEETS:  To conclude here, this Report is going to be presented next week at the UN at a Press Conference and I think that just underscores this Paradigm Shift moment that we're at, and that we really have the opportunity to make the change in the United States, go with this completely changed dynamic that's being led by the intervention of Putin, of China, and so forth, and man has an opportunity to create a new condition in our species, which has never has never existed before, and throw the trash of the 20th Century out.

So with that, we will conclude for today.  I would like to encourage everybody to keep sending in your questions via e-mail, YouTube comments, Facebook, and Twitter, and we will see you next time.



Also Relevant