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 jr writes> I understand and appreciate completely what you are saying. Unsupported in my context here referred to your "...useless boiling water" part where the QFT you offer is subsumed by my work as one of many applicable mathematical (rigorous) approaches. You have always shown an appreciation for my effort and work. When it was only the gravitational posts even. And I recognized that. When it was only the Newtonian aspect you offered direction according to your sincere belief. I could easily understand how you could think that I was grinding away in elementary essentially prehistoric physics. On the strength of that possibility (perhaps you had already been here and had a better way) I reviewed your work and as you know I was impressed. Enough even to continue our discussion. There are parts of your work that I took exception to and I pointed some of it out... but I did not tell you that you are wasting your time even though I think that you are tracking in areas that have and are being tracked still even today... with little hope of any conceptually clear success. As you say about me: traveling with the wrong fundamental basics. I support my basics with my posts. Which will include physics and math from Ptolemy through Einstein and QM, if I finish before I end. The enormity of it all on the one hand... reduces in the end to a mere change of perspective on the other. All of science reduces to what works. When I asked what you meant by "void of phenomenal sense" it was because I see QM as a statistical probabilty math that is based on a fantasy (orbiting electron) that works because the atom emits and absorbs the electron consistent with least action principles. The most probable event is the least action event so QM merely reflects least action electron emission and absorption events and not orbiting electrons. But we remain stuck with the orbiting electron conceptually. Worse than this, we retain the uncertainty principle based on a fantasy electron. Where the uncertainty principle follows from the fact that the atom creates and absorbs the electron on the fly consistent with the probabilities associated with its electromagnetic oscillating structure. Contrary to current practice the UP follows from the field structure and function of the atom and not from our inability to locate a non existent entity within the confines of its supposed containing theater. Consequently the UP does not give us a blank check to justify any thing that fits into our object-space erroneous view of the universe. This does not detract from the statistical probability approach which is a least action approach in all its guises. Least action approaches provide no foundation for the pure fantasy ideas put forward by Brian Greene and the guy on Saturday radio out of New York (his name gives me trouble anyway and I cant think of it at all right now). Macchu Pikoo or something similar. We can unify 4 fields or we can eliminate 3 of them. My atomic structure is consistent with all the applicable mathematical approaches and that's all we can ask of it. It does not make it correct. I admit that building an atom starting with two 1D lines in terms of a union of the two aspects of electro-magnetism is startling to say the least. It appears similar to a stage show slight of hand magic trick. Nothing could be so simple and pretty. And altho it works conceptually it is as though we climbed a long long long winding staircase to reach a far far far away door that when it opens, reveals a vast empty infinite expanse of space with no staircase leading into it. The truth may be more amazing than all our paradigm fantasies put together. And it may initially appear to be a dead end. Its just where I got after years and years of torquing my brain. Perhaps I have alzheimers. I think I had more fun when I was on the quest. Once the concepts started to form the enormity of what I had before me was oppressive. Especially gravity at first, which actually turned out to be the easiest to crack and the most difficult to communicate. A wholesale modification of the entire edifice that passed for physical knowledge. If I had to go through peer review alone I doubt that I would have even continued. The internet provides a means to reach all of humanity. That allows me to attempt to meet an obligation. Thats all I can do and I can only do it within the limits of my capability. We who have so smugly held matter as ponderable and fundamental, clearly acted upon by various forces... and now comes johnreed. And who the ____ is johnreed? Yes I would enjoy reading anything you regard as important and can clearly communicate. I may take exception to it but specifically and rationally as I see it. Which in itself is not to say that my critique or agreement is the first or the last word. And new knowledge is priceless. So please do so. But there is another "support", by intrinsic deductive consistency, inductively verified and not (yet) falsified by facts. jr writes> This is all we have really. To better say what I mean here is: You mention the unification of the fields without noting that my atomic structure eliminates 3 of them. Which effectively unifies by reducing to one. 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. jr writes> I wanted to search for a means to increase life expectancy. I got side tracked into physics because I realized that no one else was going to straighten out the mess. Since no puzzles seemed too difficult for me I chose to apply my mind to the "raging volcano" physics revolved around, with the intent to reduce the emotional mountain into an intellectual molehill. I never doubted my ability to do so but that turned out to be the minor problem. One can search for a way out of the cave and find it. But then he/she must be able to retrace all the steps to return to his/her people. And then he must show others the way out which is so convoluted that he loses the investigative party he has formed, long before fruition. The only persons of value here are those who most firmly are invested in reasons to scoff at such a notion. So all that is left to do is to systematically perforate those reasons at a public forum with the idea (hope) that one can communicate to the subconscious "approving" side of our brains directly, and therein carry the conscious scoffing side by the epiphany of subconscious recognition or approval. The Eureka function. There is a reason we like the math so much. It works and requires no comprehensive articulated conceptual clarity. Which is rational thinking and requires us to draw on our energy reserves and swiftly exhausts us. It is easy to assume that since we feel an attraction to the Earth and can quantify what we feel in terms of resistance as mass, then it is our mass that is attracted to the Earth. It is an objects mass that we work against when we lift it. Whereas it is our mass and/or the object's mass that we feel and our atoms that are attracted and/or lifted. We do not lift mass. We feel mass. We quantify what we feel. When we accelerate our atoms from the Earth we feel our mass. When our atoms accelerate toward the earth we are weightless (ie,. we only feel air resistance). We accelerate in both cases. So F=ma only applies in the falling case when we land where we again feel our mass as our atoms are pulled to the Earth's surface even as our mass rests. So we can correctly conclude that gravity is not a force because we feel a force and we feel nothing in free fall. And if you wish to jump to a mathematically convenient no brainer shortcut you can say gravity is the result of curved space=time. Now that buries articulated rational thinking under the mire of mathematics that has no descriptive range beyond verifying least action principles. And since it is our atoms that are accelerated (all at the same rate) the Earth action is electromagnetic. Acting on atoms and not on mass. Articulation is the key to comprehension. We can circumnavigate the universe with the applied mathematics based solely on what we feel and see. However, if we wish to acquire a comprehensive understanding of the universe there are no shortcuts to rational articulated ideas. 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? jr writes> Again do we unify 4 fields where three are fantasy, or do we eliminate the fantasy fields? I only require three dimensions... which is really all we have. If we have an atom built from compacted electromagnetic field structures, we eliminate the two particle fields and gravity at once. But I am interested in why it must be formulated by mainstream in 10 dimensions. No sarcasm, but hardly anybody knows, so if you don't I'll gladly explain. jr writes> Yes please do. 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. jr writes> Math fabric? Like a background condition??? Again please do. I write it hoping against hope that it may start some rational, even if disagreeing discussion. If not, let's leave it at that. jr writes> I like you Georges. Impressed that you got your daughter into physics. A good daddy too. I raised ten in California. None have police records. None use drugs. Not that I support the drug wars, on the contrary. All are living, variations of what is called here the good American life. Independent and free. None are Reap-uglicans. Whew!!! It was touch and go at times. As each arrived at 18 they had a chosen direction. I did not encourage physics. I hope to encourage my grandkids. Have a good time, johnreed --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
