I got email!- Update

So as you might be aware, I got an email from Victor Senchenko suggesting that I read his free book.  As I hope you are also aware, I took the time to evaluate his views and himself and found his views lacking support and his own credibility suspect.  I also sent him an email linking to that post.  Since then he has sent me two emails.  Before going further, understand why I am doing this in public instead of privately.  I am, first and foremost, interested in educating others.  I want to make this blog a sort of resource for people who wish to learn.  As such, this is primarily an exercise in critical thinking and reasonable discussion.  Second, I think this is an excellent opportunity to possibly entertain others.  Although I treat the ideas advanced by Mr. Senchenko quite seriously, I also rebut them with a bit of humour.  Third and finally, this allows for complete transparency on both my part and his.  I will not remove a single sentence from his emails to me posted below and will do all within my power to address every claim within them.  If I do not answer one of provide a non-answer, this will be apparent to anyone reading.  Granted, the same is also true of his future replies, if any, but I think that such transparency helps increase the calibre of debate.

With that explained, unto the show!

This email was sent to me Wednesday 27 July:

Dear Ian,

Thanks for your efforts. I skimmed quickly over your commentary, and have
two point to make:

A. It is so predictable of many people to pass judgments without first 
having examined the contents for themselves. So read the book, then 
see how wrong I am in presenting the actual reality of all physical 
existence. Just because you we taught that something exists, be that 
god or 'time', it does not mean that these entities actually 
physically exist.

B. I'm not sure where you've gained links that you speak of, because 
they seem to lead to non-existent pages. I've asked my media team guys 
to look into that. My site has five or six pages only. Perhaps you 
should recheck the same. I suspect some naughty business from someone.

Best Regards,
Victor

Point A-

You do not have to read a book to know if it, more or less, will be worth reading.  You can determine a lot of a book’s quality by looking at its publication, author, and reviews.  Best of all are samples of the book which allow you to actually acquaint yourself with the writing style.  It is true that just because I have been taught and shown the evidence that something is true does not mean it necessarily is.  I accept that I could be wrong and that I do not know anything with 100% certainty.  That being said, we have to use evidence to weigh different claims against each other.  In the excerpts provided electronically not a stitch of evidence was provided to support the claims advanced.  However, all of the physics I have been taught has strong evidence, even quantum mechanics.

I have examined the contents of the book, those that do not require a full download at least, and have found them wanting.  Not only was a single shred of evidence provided, but the extraordinary claims go against views for which there is abundant evidence.  That is why I have passed judgement on the book, same as the dozens I do not read every time I go to the library or book store.  Life is not long enough to read everything, as I have said before, so we must pick and choose the material that is worth our time.

Point B-

They very well may be from someone else, but I am now confident that such is not the case (more on that later).  The links I provided are indeed nonfunctional right now, but thanks to the magic of Google, they have been preserved, cached.

I actually found a page I did not see earlier, which I have read and found quite entertaining: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:llaB7nRsKBsJ:www.victorsenchenko.com/victorsPage1.html+VictorSenchenko.com&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

In the event that link fails to produce a page, I have also taken a screenshot of me looking at that page (in the event anyone has doubts at any time).  The text of that page are quite illuminating, as Mr. Senchenko posts the text of a letter to Richard Dawkins attempting to enlighten him.  It is fascinating to read this because every instance of the word time includes quotation marks, which tends to indicate a term that the author is not using as people would typically think.  He also finally reveals some of the evidence and reasoning I have been wanting to see.

His entire argument seems to boil down to that time is not physical.  My only response can only be “of course not, so what?”.  The passage of time is determined by the change in the physical universe, time is how we describe the fact that things change.  This quote perfectly captures what it is he is trying to say:

To give a simplistic explanation to what is inferred: were ‘time’ to physically exist, then that ‘time’ would need to physically influence simultaneously, and at the same rate of speed, two similar objects, or bodies, located few centimetres from each other, despite the possibility of the two being separated by different physical environments. This would mean that if two successive leaves, obtained from the same branch of a tree, were separated: where one leaf was placed into confines of a functioning refrigerating freezer – that whole appliance exposed to the sun – while the other leaf was placed on top of that refrigerating appliance, and therefore, itself being exposed to the sun, then, according to current human perception of ‘time’, these two leaves would need to decay at the same rate, as they would be sharing the same region of ‘time’. But because ‘time’ does not exist, the physical result of such experiment would be that the leaf on top of a refrigerating unit, exposed to the sun and the elements, shall deteriorate, dry out, and disintegrate months – if not years – before the leaf located within the refrigerating freezer has experienced any physical deterioration.

This is a wonderful example because it shows exactly where Mr. Senchenko disagrees with modern physics.  First, I am not aware of anyone who would predict the same rate of decay for the two leaves.  Cold inhibits the micro-organisms that would cause a leaf to decay and rot, where direct sunlight has its own damaging effects to a leaf that is no longer attached to a tree.  Time is not what causes them to decay, but rather the function of a multitude of different factors over time causes it.  The passage of time causes nothing inherently, it is those changing within the universe over time that cause the visible changes we use to mark time.

The rest of the page is basically saying how modern physics is deluded, promoting his book, pointing out how scientific luminaries of the past have been labelled as crazy or ignored and that it would not be fair to not read his book.

The book samples have also disappeared from accessibility, but here is the cached link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:buJAyR0BkNkJ:victorsenchenko.com/samples.html+site:victorsenchenko.com+VictorSenchenko.com&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com

Again, I have taken a screen shot as evidence.

There are quite a few cached pages that I found very interesting, I suggest that you, the reader of this post, take a look at a few that are not available any more.  I recommend using the query

site:victorsenchenko.com VictorSenchenko.com

I did not respond to the first email, the rest of my life had demands on my time.

This is the email sent to me Friday 29 July:

Dear Ian,

I’m not sure if you had received my earlier short email, because our 
server had been compromised by some naughty people who had caused a 
bit of havoc to our sites, corrupting our POP emails, resulting in 
their failure to reach their destinations. Still, it is not the fist 
or the last occasion this will happen. Meanwhile, I’ve been assured 
that my little five-paged site is restored. You may, therefore, find 
that many nonexistent links attributed to my site are just that: 
nonexistent.

Which, to those of you paying attention to such things, admits that he and his team has control over them.  This is why I have gone to such lengths here to highlight the utility of Google and its cache function.

Now that my end is operational again, allow me to respond to your 
invitation more thoroughly.

In the first place, if you were expecting me to defend the book to 
which you were sent our media release of a free download, you’ll be 
disappointed. After all, how can I begin to do that when you’ve not 
read it.

Simple, you can give a reason to read it.  Every other book in the world is fighting to be read, yours is not exempt from that combat.

Not surprisingly, you had preferred to post you opinions of me and the 
book based not on the book itself, but from pre-judging what the book 
is about, judging the book by the cover, so to speak, something that’s 
never recommended.  And, of course, in doing so, you had resorted to 
ridicule that which you don’t know, simply because you think that this 
makes you seem more astute and perceptive.

No, actually.  Yes, I made jokes, sarcastic comments, and in general had fun with writing the post.  However, as mentioned above, that is part entertainment purposes and part simply me trying to enjoy myself.

You make assertions that I know little of physics and chemistry. But 
while I actually know of your perceptions of them you do not know of 
my knowledge of physics and chemistry.

I know you show no regard or even feel the need to show how they are faulty.  If physics and chemistry were not relatively accurate in their current forms, they would not produce the technology they do.  I at least do you the consideration of saying why I think you are wrong in a way that anyone can see easily.  This is an age where we must make our information accessible to people as quickly as possible, especially the more esoteric and novel.

For instance: you do not know the real reasons for the so-called 
gravitation (as neither did Einstein – to whom you give this credit) 
but I do. I even present a diagram showing how this physically occurs. 

  I know and show this because I know that gravitation is the result 
of what I call ‘boundaries of influence’ of individual objects, which 
produce not just attractions but also simultaneous repulsions. It is 
these attractions and repulsions that hold together bodies in vacuum 
space at a distance from each other, preventing them from merging with 
each other while preventing their release of one another. And how do I 
know this? Well, you’ll have to read the explanation, which easily 
shows how unfounded and even silly Einstein’s notions were, and are.

It is one thing to say someone is wrong, another to say they are silly.  Not even I call religion silly.  Remember, you are talking about one of the people who helped cause the world to be as it is.

That being said, what evidence do you have that these “boundaries of influence” are anything that modern physics is not already aware of?  Is it possible they are the strong and/or weak nuclear forces?

Even the title of the book represents a physical fact that applies to 
each and every living human: we are all human space navigators. You 
may not know this but I do, and say so. So while you may think that 
you know a lot, in physical reality you know very little of yourself 
and all that physically surrounds you.

Yet, I have not seen any evidence that this is the case, nor have you even produced a challenging thought experiment to illustrate what you mean.  You are flourishing with terms that have no significance outside of your book.

I can’t help but smile when I receive email suggestions that I should: 
“Shut up and die”.  The amazing thing is that such sentiments also 
come from those who claim to uphold science. But in presenting me with 
such kind wished do these people make such comments having read the 
book? Never. Like you, Ian, they prefer to lay into me in ignorance 
rather than doing so after having read the book. Why? Because they 
prefer to defend their presumptions – taught to them by earlier 
generations of humans – rather than facing the possibility that their 
perceptions will be shattered. They (like you) prefer to share the 
flaws of popular beliefs rather than expose themselves to the shock of 
the physical reality.

Let the record state that I, for one, never said you should shut up or die.  I never said those words at all.  I have been wrong in the past, I have had my entire worldview shaken (I was not always an atheist) and redefined because I realized I was wrong.  I engage in the beliefs I do because I think they are firmly founded in evidence.  Evidence which, again, you have not countered.

You also make fun of the reason for the book. So allow me to ask you a 
question: How long would you have human species exist on this planet? 
No, not how long you think they may exist, but how long would you have 
them exist, if you could? Ten thousand years? Fifty thousand? Hundred 
thousand? While many people wouldn’t care beyond their children or 
grandchildren, I would have human species survive into millions years 
from now. I acknowledge this openly, with no modesty but also with no 
conceit or sanctimony.

I would love to see humankind thrive for as long as it is able, as I would with any species.  I would love for many of the species that have or almost have died out to still be around, I want every creature and species to live to the best of its ability.  I think the only way we humans can succeed in our potential is to critically analyse the information we are exposed to, rather than gulping down anyone who claims to be right.  I would rather have to prove myself a hundred times over than have one person accept my views without question.

Please, never assume that those to whom you speak are wilfully ignorant, short-sighted, or otherwise lacking in any way.  The moment you assume defect in your opposition is when you move from pride to arrogance.  If they demonstrate a shortcoming then keep it in mind an attempt to keep it from impacting your

Sure, Ian, its easy to be condescending to those with higher ideals. 
But unlike singers who imagine and sing mellow songs about it, I’m 
doing what I need to do. There may be those in distant future who 
appreciate my efforts. And if I come up short, so what? There is no 
shame in failure. Besides, as Taoists used to say: A river begins with 
a single droplet; a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single 
step. So no matter how you snipe at my purpose for producing the book, 
the first milestones are already behind me.

I do not criticize your efforts, I merely think you are mistaken.  My intent is dual: 1) Expose my readers to your ideas and our discussion on them to enlighten them to both sides and 2) understand your ideas better, even if it means changing my ideas or firmly rejecting yours.  I do not imagine I could persuade you of anything, but I love to explore ideas and find where they have merit and where they lack merit.  For what it is worth, I think your goals and intentions are noble, although I am beginning to seriously doubt your means.

There is yet another old saying you may be familiar with: You can lead 
a horse to water but you can’t force it to drink. In a manner of 
speaking this is what we’ve done with you. We laid the pearl before 
you and that’s all we can do.

Pot calling the kettle black.  We can exchange fun little sayings as much as we want, but saying one of us is being wilfully ignorant only closes off discussion, which is not something I wish to do.  I have debated with people whose ideas were so antithetical to mine that I had to learn an entire new language (essentially).  Not once did I insult them in any way, shape, or form.  Yes, I made jokes, yes I said things sarcastically, but never did I treat them as anything but an equal.  I was even in a position of power at the time and you know what, when circumstances forced me to remove them from the forum, I actually felt a sense of loss.

And, yet, your attitude displayed in your post discloses one thing 
about you: you talk-the-talk but you don’t walk-the-walk. There are 
many like you who present a facade of reason, claiming of wanting to 
know the answers to all the mysteries of the Universe, but who, once 
presented with that opportunity, hide behind their erroneous opinions 
and excuses.

Again, we could trade fun sayings as long as we want, but it will get us nowhere.  At no point have you provided any reason why anyone who doesn’t have an infinite amount of spare time would read your book.  I do want to know the secrets of the world, but I also have no reason to believe that you offer any of them.

So, Ian, prove to me – and all your readers – that you’re not like 
that. Post this communique, read the book then show us all that I know 
nothing. Read the book then show us all where I am deluded. Read the 
book then tell us all that everything in it is not the full physical 
truth.

‘Til then, best regards,
Victor

As I have said several times, I do not have time to read your book, especially with all the others I have that I want to read.  I have well over 50 books right next to me that I have not read yet but think will be worth the time reading them, yours has not shown anything worth further investigation.

His last email to me.

Advertisement