Re: Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields"

jem wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
jem wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
jem wrote:
John Kennaugh wrote:
You would be accused of failing to understand modern physics. Of clinging to old fashioned concepts. You would be told that nature has been 'shown' to be so weird that it is beyond anything we can possibly imagine and therefore can only be described in mathematical terms. A modern physicist is the 21st century shaman. He owes his status to the fact that he deals in ideas beyond the comprehension of mere mortals.

As always, Kennaugh, you get it wrong.
The modern strategy for understanding the world, which /Science/
Physics. - not science generally. Science generally attempts to understand nature, to understand how it works.

All Sciences (even Social Sciences) use the modern strategy, i.e., they seek to duplicate Nature's facts using logical models.

has adopted, hasn't been adopted because Nature is "wierd" (whatever that means),
I am quoting others description of physics. Mine would be "cocked up" but I thought I would use the generally accepted term.

You described Nature, not Physics.

Nature is what it is - it's senseless to describe it as weird. If Nature's behavior /seems/ strange to us, then what's weird is our intuitive sense of how Nature /should/ behave.

but simply because no one's come up with any strategy that leads to a greater understanding of the world.
No one has tried. All priests believe in God. Could it be because you
don't get a job as a priest unless you do?

You can't be serious. You're making me question my assessment of you as a /rational/ kook.

The philosophy called Science
is the product of thousands of years of the collective thinking of millions of people. How's that for not trying?
So is religion.


All physicists accept the belief system which is modern physics. What is the chance they would get a job as a physicist if they didn't?

All accountants accept the belief system which is modern accounting. What is the chance they would get a job as an accountant if they didn't?
Accountants live in the real world. If they took liberties with the rules under which they operate they would get jumped on. Physics is a closed order. The only people physicists have to impress are other physicists. The only way of gaining status is to get the approval of those with more status than oneself.


All professions function as they do because the collective wisdom of all the people who've ever worked in that profession has led to that functioning. And yes, those who haven't yet developed an appreciation for why things are done the way they're done today, aren't going to get a lot of say when it comes to deciding how things should be done tomorrow.

It is a
self perpetuating belief system. It is a regime without an opposition to keep it on its toes. Anyone suggesting it is wrong is marginalised and treated like a heretic.

That's nonsense, Kennaugh. You sound a lot like a somebody who's had a bad personal experience, and who now filters everything through that experience.
No. I study the history. It stinks. It is clear why the rules were changed from the history. Basically Physics had accepted something which under the old rules was obviously absurd. With the new way of working it is less obvious.


It matters not a jot to me whether physics is cocked up or not but if you take an unbiased look at the history

Like /your/ unbiased look, for instance?
I assure you it does not take a genius. It is very very simple. Your problem is that you have to believe that it is more complicated, more sophisticated than it actually is. You don't have to take my word for it try a real historian:
"(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity theory
of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which attracted
much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the constancy of
the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in a vacuum is
the same in all systems of reference which are moving relatively to each
other, an assertion which at the time was widely accepted." Sir Edmund Whittaker's The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity, Vol 2
It was "widely accepted". That is how the MMX was interpreted. If Maxwell is impeccable then the MMX shows that every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether. If every observer is stationary w.r.t the aether every observer will see light travel every which way at c. The second postulate simply describes that. Albert justifies his first postulate in detail but has no need to justify his second as it states what was widely accepted. You can dress it up, and books try to, but it is hardly sophisticated thinking. Einstein's "genius" was that when things got ridiculous he didn't give up when others would have done. He ploughed on and 3 perfectly sensible and long establish axioms of physics went in the bin. Anything rather than accept Maxwell's theory is wrong.

on which it is based it is glaringly obvious that human nature and belief played a significant part in distorting what happened.
Your little rant is totally devoid of argument. You do not take my
statements and show that they are wrong or illogical.

As you very well know, I've addressed your statements many times,
You don't address anything ever. Gems of yours from the past - Gems from jem one might say :o).
"SR "gets rid of" the LET ether simply by not making use of it." - jem
or as I would put it - Einstein objected to the theoretical structure of Lorentz's theory and avoided it by coming up with a "theory" which does not have a theoretical structure. The maths of Lorentz's theory without any theory.
"...models aren't created for the purpose of explaining Nature (which isn't possible), but predicting Nature." - jem
In Biology there is a model of a cell. The model is gradually being refining, they are learning how it works, how the bits fit together, how the chemical messengers work and so on. That is a Science, it tries - and is succeeding - to try and explain nature. Physics is no longer a science because it doesn't. It used to but it changed the rules.
"You're concept of what a theory needs to be is distorted; all that's
required of a physical theory is that it predict measurements." - jem
Physics is now mathematical modelling. The algorithm which predicts the tides is a 'physical theory'. The moon is not needed to 'explain' the tides any more than the aether is needed for waves to propagate in. Physical models may have led to the maths but once we have maths that work we can forget whatever specious route may have led to them. - that way you can dismiss history with all its absurdity.
" all entities exist only in models of the world. It's senseless to talk about what does or doesn't exist in Nature, because there's absolutely no way to verify such existence." - jem
"The Universe and all the things contained within it, are mere imagery that exists nowhere but in formal and informal models created to make sense of phenomenological experience." - jem
We may be living in a virtual universe where nothing is real in which case there is little point in trying to make sense of it because there is no reason to assume that any rules govern what happens in it. It is a basic assumption of science that there is a real universe and that we are not wasting our time studying it.

including the prior two times which /you/ haven't responded to (I just assumed your weather must be particularly good).
What you were saying was getting too silly to bother. They were words which were not saying anything. Were not addressing anything.


What you do in effect is to say that modern physics does not look at things in those terms. I make a similar statement myself. It is what is wrong with physics. Rather than accept it was wrong it changed the rules. All you are accusing me of is not being a true believer in the new order which I totally accept.

Actually, I'm accusing you of not having any idea what the "new order" is,...
What? After you have so clearly defined it for me?
" light isn't something that exists in Nature with properties that Science attempts to discover, it's something that exists in models of Nature where *what* it is, is *exactly* what it's *defined* to be." - jem
I don't accept that definition of science. light *is* something that exists in Nature with properties that Science should attempt to
discover. That discovery process may involve less than perfect "models" but progress involves refining those models so that they more closely match nature.
Physics is based on a model which should have been junked a century ago because it was not fit for purpose. Physics now has two totally contradictory models of light because too many physicists couldn't accept they were wrong - and still can't.

I see that you've /remembered/ a lot of what I've said, Kennaugh, and also that you've made no attempt to /comprehend/ any of it.

I comprehend. I do not accept that physics has any right to change the basic rules it operated on and which other sciences still operate on.

Evidently, you prefer to leave those blinders in place and continue your I'm-right-the-rest-of-the-world-is-wrong tirades against things you at best superficially understand. That's certainly a popular preference here at SPR.

--
John Kennaugh
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist sufficiently
strongly on the physical reality of the physical world." Dr Scott Murray
.

Quantcast