My response praised your endeavor both, at the beginning
("the enormous and apparently sincere endeavor") and at
the end, where I praise your drive saying that IMO
you could use it better standing on the shoulders of QFT
and be creative in avant-garde domains of fundamental
Physics such as trials of unification or singularity-free
mathematical field descriptions.
I got an off topic, ad hominem answer, which I shall
comment in-line in a few most typical places.
> jr writes>
> As an American I "certainly" recognize your right
> to express your
> unsupported opinion. However, unsupported opinions are as
> common as
> the "tongues" that wag them.
================
G:
True. Copernicus, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Maxwell,
Planck, Darwin, Einstein wagged unsupported opinions and
so do you, thus if I wag, I wag in good company.
Yet, as American, claiming in the following paragraph
an expertise in English, you know better than me that
(un)supported is a meaningless empty predicate unless
specified "by whom/what". In your context it is clearly
"by Inquisition" in the sense implied by Paul Marmet:
QUOTE
...in recent years, the "purity" of science
has been ever more closely guarded by a self-imposed
inquisition called the peer review. [...] Like the
inquisition of the medieval church, it has teeth and can
wreck a career by refusing funds for research or by
censoring publications."
There is not much hope for new scientists to try writing
new papers to rationalize physics unless they accept to
end their career. Some centuries ago, they burned Bruno
and imprisoned Galileo. Even in our century, a dissident
of the Copenhagen interpretation is rejected and called
a crank
UNQUOTE
But there is another "support", by intrinsic deductive
consistency, inductively verified and not (yet) falsified
by facts.
My "opinion" seems to be "supported" in this way. But I
don't reinvent Physics, even if I contributer to SR by
rigorously deriving E=MC^2. I induce from it an Ontology
underlying an Epistemology which culminates in a Logic
confirmed by efficient use in the Gemini Project (sending
the man to the moon) and never so far falsified.
I have direct contact with the cutting edge of Physics
mainly via my daughter Agnes, whom I coached in her
beginnings, who spent 12 years to climb through BS, MS,
PHD in Physict to PHD in Astronomy, and worked four years
in La Silla observatory in Chilean Ands to describe three
new discovered stars. Her opinion confirmed by a frew CERN
researchers whom I know, is that the current state of the
art of Physics consists in 1.experimenting, 2.coordinating
with help of QFT mathematics handicaped by weird
normalisation, 3.never interpreting, in wake of Dirac's
"Shut up and Compute".
So, if you want to revolutionize Physics, you would have
to work for 20 years in some CERN or Silla, do some
original experiments and/or equations. Did you?
Then, with this luggage you could climb to the
hypothetical unifying domain of p-brans, superstrings,
etc.
BTW, it's not my cup of tea, but at least I know why the
most realistic unifying theories are formulated in
10 Dimensions. Not from some Stanford or other kitchen
almanac, but from my own experience in Physics.
Do you?
No sarcasm, but hardly anybody knows, so if you don't
I'll gladly explain.
BTW, below you talk about electric current and its
generated magnetic Field.
Do you know at least what is the mathematic fabric of
the so called "magnetic field vector"?
Again, no sarcasm, very few know and I am ready to help.
I write it hoping against hope that it may start some
rational, even if disagreeing discussion.
If not, let's leave it at that.
Georges
================
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
