Abe Books is owned by Amazon.
https://ethicalrevolution.co.uk/amazon-alternatives/
Here are genuine alternatives. 👇
•http://Partage.com 👈🏼
•http://OnBuy.com 👈🏼
*http://Partage.com 👈🏼
*http://libro.fm 👈🏼
AND MORE 👇🏼👇🏼👇🏼
•https://ethicalrevolution.co.uk/amazon-alternatives/ 👈🏼
•https://twitter.com/Ethicalution/status/1396713063806652417?t=e6OgMwMAz9trA9EHFbW71w&s=19 👈🏼

'Part I of ORGONOMIC FUNCTIONALISM, "Ether, God and Devil," appears in the Annals of the Orgone Institute, №. 2.
ORGONOMIC FUNCTIONALISM itself is part of the third volume of THE DISCOVERY OF THE ORGONE: ORGONOMETRY.'

Footnote from
Orgone Energy Bulletin Vol. 2, No. 1, January 1950, page 1,
Orgonomic Functionalism Part II, On the Historical Development of Orgonomic Functionalism,
by Wilhelm Reich

"This was what Feynman called the Babylonian approach to science. It’s closer to engineering. To a Babylonian scientist, “Does it work?” “Does the bridge stand?” are better questions than, “Is it elegant?” “Does it explain the mind of God?”

"Feynman divided all scientists as Athenians or Babylonians. He was of the second group. But Athenians wanted to know the essence of the problem. They, like Plato, thought of the perfect form. A chair had a form or an essence that was more elegant than the thing in your dining room that had splinters and wobbled. The form was more important to Athenian philosophy, than the thing itself.

"Feynman pointed out that the Babylonians used mathematics with base 60 because it allowed for more factoring. So we still have a circle with 360 degrees, 60 minutes and 60 seconds of arc. It was practical. Feynman’s rival, Murray Gell-Mann was an Athenian in how he approached theoretical physics. These two brilliant physicists couldn’t agree on anything. It is ironic that Gell-Mann and Feynman shared a secretary. She must have had an interesting job.

"In direct answer to your question, a Babylonian or an engineer stands by that which stands."

https://news.1rj.ru/str/orgonecontinuum/86

pictured, Robert Shankland
sampled from
Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift
Experiments: A Fresh Look*
James DeMeo
http://orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Shankland Team's 1955 Critique of Miller
pictured, Robert Shankland
https://news.1rj.ru/str/orgonecontinuum/88
excerpted from
Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift
Experiments: A Fresh Look*
James DeMeo
http://orgonelab.org/miller.htm

As previously pointed out by Swenson, Shankland's 1955 critique of Miller's work was undertaken with "extensive consultations" with Einstein, who like Newton and others before him had assumed only a static or stagnant ether, through which the Earth passed without material affect and, hence, without entrainment close to the Earth's surface. Shankland in fact was Miller's student for many years, and only emerged to become a professional advocate of Einstein's relativity after the death of Miller in 1941. Shankland became Chairman of the Physics Department at Case following Miller's retirement and death, building his professional career upon publications misrepresenting the Michelson-Morley experiments as the most solid evidence on the question, and publishing widely-read interviews with Einstein (Shankland 1963, 1964, 1973a, 1973b). Shankland later took up administrative positions within government agencies developing nuclear energy — he rarely discussed Miller's positive ether-drift measurements in any of these papers except in the 1955 paper under discussion here. In this sense, it is legitimate to view Shankland, and other members of his team (all Einstein advocates from Case) as very biased reviewers of Miller's work.

The very first sentence in the Shankland team's 1955 paper began with the falsehood, now widely parroted in nearly every physics textbook, that the Michelson-Morley experiments had a "null" result. The third sentence in the Shankland paper was similarly false, claiming that "All trials of this experiment except those carried out at Mount Wilson by Dayton C. Miller yielded a null result within the accuracy of the observations." This kind of chronic misrepresentation of the slight positive results of many interferometer experimenters, including Michelson-Morley, Morley-Miller, Sagnac, Michelson-Gale, and Michelson-Pease-Pearson, suggests an extreme bias and deliberate misrepresentation. The fact that this is a very popular bias does not excuse it. By redefining all the positive results observed by what may in fact have been the majority of ether-drift researchers, as mere expressions of "observational inaccuracy", Shankland narrowed his task considerably.

These and other sentences in the Shankland paper revealed its bias from the get-go, and gave it the spirit of an autopsy, where Miller was dissected without careful concern, and certainly where no advocate of ether theory appeared to be involved in the process. It is possible, by the 1950s, there was nobody left who could fill Miller's shoes to make an adequate defense. Ether-theory was then being compared to "the search for perpetual-motion machines" (Swenson 1972, p.239), and such ridicule surely must have had a silencing effect upon the entire fields of physics and astronomy. Swenson also suggests that, during his later years, Miller was largely ignored and isolated. This appears to be correct, as according to an interview with Shankland made in 1981, shortly before Miller died he gave all of his interferometer data sheets — hundreds of pages of measurements —to his one-time student Shankland, with the somewhat bitter statement that he should "either analyze the data, or burn it" (Kimball 1981, p.2). In that same interview, Shankland also blamed Miller for having blocked the awarding of a Nobel Prize to Einstein for his relativity theory — clearly, Miller's work was a major obstacle to the Einstein theory of relativity, and for that reason may have given Einstein and his followers sleepless nights.

The noscript of the Shankland paper, and its overall representation suggests the authors had made a serious review of "the interferometer observations" of Miller, to include some kind of comprehensive and inclusive evaluation — but this was not the case.

There were two basic approaches to the Shankland team's analysis: 1) a search for random errors or statistical fluctuations in Miller's data, and 2) a review of selected data sets which they claimed demonstrated significant thermal artifacts in the data. We can review these claims.