Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 7:59:25 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
>> El viernes, 15 de octubre de 2021 a las 16:10:43 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
>>> On Friday, October 15, 2021 at 12:26:28 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>> The response by propagandists like Hertz are, “Well, if it falls short of
>>>> being a theory of the whole range of everything, then it is no better than
>>>> the Newtonian/Maxwellian description of the world that I found useful as an
>>>> engineer.”
>>>>
>>>> This is of course silly and well as pointless pot-stirring, just to pass
>>>> the time. One might as well spend all day filling crossword puzzles with
>>>> random letters and claim subversive victory in doing that.
>>> Retired Electronic engineers (Hertz, Paparios), failed
>>> philosopher-mathematicians (Bodkin), reptilian mathematician lifeforms (Dono), etc.
>>> are just a sample of professionals in hard sciences that are peeking at
>>> the stupid world of physics on the edge.
>>>
>> I'm a retired Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering, which in
>> the late 60's studied relativity and quantum mechanics, by using the Lev
>> Landou books Volume 2: The Classical Theory of Fields and Volume 3:
>> Quantum Mechanics non Relativistic as part of my basic training in Modern Physics.
>> Those are graduate level books which are used by current physicists,
>> such as Leonard Susskind, to teach modern physics. See
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRZgW1YjCKk&t=1059s and
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzhlfbWBuQ8&t=1611s.
>>> Some, while persists peeking mounted on fanatic relativist bias, have a
>>> limited view of what is to be the "frontiers of physics". These
>>> indoctrinated and presumptuous creatures believe that such frontiers
>>> have to be pushed to the limits of absurdity, because in their
>>> godless world, there are no limits.
>>>
>> The real value of new models is provided by predicting experiments
>> results. Some of the new models do not have provided the necessary
>> predictive resuts from experiments, and therefore those models can not be falsified.
>>> Others, like me, understand and comprehend why humans do have a limit
>>> for explanations to be obtained. And that limit is based on
>>> reason, logic and moral reject of sophistry, fallacy and vanity.
>
>
> Paparios, about your final comment:
>
>> The real problem is you are not a physicist (I'm also not a physisist)
>> so you have not a clue about how a physics model is built.
>
> is fallacious, because it ties physics with a diploma and not with
> inquisitive minds in whichever field they decide to get involved.

Intelligence and inquisitiveness are not enough. They aren’t in any field
where professional credentials are important. They aren’t in law, or in
medicine, in architecture, or for that matter in engineering.

There are lots of pretenders who would LOVE to self-declare as physicists
just because they have a fascination with the subject. That’s not enough. I
have a fascination with the subject. I have intelligence and
inquisitiveness. I am not a physicist.

>
> The fallacy is (IMO): Today, very physicist has a diploma. So everyone
> with a diploma in physics is a physicist, therefore those who
> don't have a physicist diploma IS NOT a physicist. (The fallacy is just at plain sight).
>
> The denomination of physicist only took place around 1850 (I don't know
> why, besides the fact that universities started with this).
> Before that time, physicists were called natural philosophers (like
> Galileo, Newton, Kelvin, Kirchoff, Joule, Ohm, Faraday and so many
> others that 200 famous names can be collected within an hour using
> Google). They were living along with pure philosophers,
> mathematicians and astronomers, having mutual respect for each other and
> a belief in cross-fertilization within sciences.

There is still cross-fertilization. But to go back to 1850, when most
dental care was performed by barbers, doesn’t seem to be the answer. If
you’d like to pine away for the days of yore, then perhaps the best thing
you could advocate for is the restoration of the
apprentice/journeyman/master model, which was the nearest thing to
credentialing back in the era you are nostalgic for. And if you wish to
return to the days of “natural philosophy”, then you’ll also return to the
days where the only practitioners were independently wealthy or could find
a wealthy patron to fund them.

All of this is self-serving faux-nostalgia on your part anyway, since
you’re only advocating it to defend yourself as an interested (but woefully
uninformed) amateur in physics, and you’d like to argue that you’re on a
level playing field. That’s a delusion you can feed yourself, but no one
else is swallowing.

>
> You are not going to find, before XX century, personal positions on
> territoriality and criticism to adventurers of thought who crossed
> boundaries with freedom. Attacks like: "you're not a mathematician, so
> shut up" or "you're not a philosopher, so shut up" were
> unthinkable on XVII to XIX centuries, because (and due to a severe degree
> of illiteracy in that society), intelligent and inquiring minds
> were treated as national treasures and a source of pride and joy by the
> ruling classes at EVERY country.
>
> There was not so much competence for such specific jobs, because
> education in higher degrees was expensive to establish within
> those establishments. Only careers for different crafts existed, as that
> is what those societies needed to prosper (including the
> forefathers of modern engineers). After 1850-1860, when technology and
> science became a source of abundant money, the need
> for more formally developed technicians and engineers became clear. Also,
> it was proven in practice that physics had became a
> serious matter and should be differentiated from any other technical or
> pure philosophical formation. Then, the need for physicists
> with a good background on mathematics, philosophy and practical abilities
> in the laboratory was clearly designed. My best example
> for that epoch is James Clerk Maxwell, who had that all plus an immense
> intellect beyond this world.
>
> When Planck decided to study physics by 1877, he wanted to follow the
> lead that Maxwell (and others) had established just 15 years
> before, only that he didn't like experimental physics AT ALL. Not that he
> didn't believe in such career. Just that he wanted to work ONLY
> with his mind as a tool, and became a theoretical physicist.
>
> Being a theoretical physicist by 1880 wasn't seen as a promising career
> for parents (who had to pay the bills and wanted the best for
> their sons), but Planck insisted with his father and got what he wanted:
> to be a theoretical physicist, view the world through the power
> of mathematics and align his work with the output of laboratories, which
> produced tons of empirical data waiting for a formal body of
> mathematical framework. He loved his work, and succeeded by 1900 with his
> theory of the BBC and E=hf, which was only possible
> because he had INTIMATE CONTACT with german laboratories and experimental
> physicists with which he socialized. Actually, it was
> at a dinner at his house with Rubens from the PTR (two months before his
> breakthrough) that he was informed that Wien's 1896 theory
> failed at long wavelengths. You can read the whole history of BB at my
> only paper summarizing 40 years quest on such topic here:
>
> https://physictheories.blogspot.com/2019/04/thermal-radiation-black-body-theory-and.html
>
> The amount of theoretical physicists skyrocketed after Maxwell, and by
> 1900 such career was firmly established. Only that, by then,
> it had lost his SOUL (natural philosophy) and was only based on
> mathematics (increasingly complex for its use at physics), data fed
> from laboratories and conjectures/propositions replacing philosophy as a
> source (in the dreamed stroke of genius).
>
> But, in parallel way to the development of R&D in technology, new
> discoveries in experimental physics and chemistry and some new
> tools derived from applied mathematics, physicists dig deeper and deeper
> in secrets of nature, with the support of increasing accuracy
> in lab and outdoor experiments. THEN, in such a short lapse, and with an
> increasing population of theoretical physicists, things turned
> nasty for everyone within the community and outside it. Every stupid
> human flaw was/is displayed to support "belonging" and to reject
> intro-mission from outsiders. Today, such community (even highly
> compartmentalized) is a closed system.
>
> Every human outside such system is an IGNORANT. And every human who
> question the community's credos and methods is, to the
> least, a crank. And, don't even try to question relativity, because then
> you're a threat to the system.
>
> But this only applies to WESTERN SCIENCE. Eastern science (centered at
> China) is developing a DIFFERENT VIEW for physics, which is
> believed THERE to be born with Newton. In these days, relativity is
> questioned at China by many scientists and engineers as the root
> of all evil in modern physics and cosmology.
>
> A movement, which seems to have 2,000 members in China alone, is
> challenging relativity claiming that it's wrong, false and void
> of philosophical coherence. These groups claim that a return to the "old
> methods" in physics is required to regain reason, because
> the current status of physics is full of nonsensical and nonphysical
> meanings. And this is related with the incorrect manipulation of
> the concepts of time, space, matter and energy.
>
> Here are some links, with the very recent news:

You may be interested to know the number of members of the Flat Earth
Society, for much the same reason. Why would you dismiss one and elevate
the other?

>
> https://inf.news/en/science/60a6e27f304ce0383070565dbbdfdbec.html
>
> https://inf.news/en/science/6e931e6788d3cd82c8fb94ac8e34e32f.html
>
> ---------------------------------------- I quote here some excerpts:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "As we all know, time and space are the two most basic concepts of
> physics. Einstein regarded time and space as completely relative
> concepts, which would lead to endless logical contradictions and cause
> huge confusion and trouble to physics. Einstein's general theory of
> relativity is going to extremes. It regards gravity as the curvature of
> time and space. According to general relativity, gravity does not exist,
> only the bending of time and space is left. This kind of theory is
> extremely weird, leading to distortions in time and space, strange black
> holes, white holes and wormholes, dark matter and dark energy, and other
> inexplicable concepts that bring physics into the ditch. There are a lot
> of difficulties in modern astrophysics and cosmology, all of which are
> rooted in Einstein's general theory of relativity."
> ...............
> "At present, more and more people in the field of physics believe that
> the theory of relativity is not valid. Physics needs a revolution, which
> has gradually become a consensus in the scientific community. It's just
> that ordinary media people and the public don't understand the truth and
> still regard Einstein as a god. Some people have already formed a
> conditioned reflex. Hearing that some people are opposed to the theory of
> relativity, they are furious, as if digging their ancestral graves. They
> habitually believe that those who oppose the theory of relativity are
> purely ignorant, lack common knowledge in physics, have low intelligence,
> and cannot understand advanced science. They collectively refer to those
> who oppose the theory of relativity as "minke"."
> ..................
> "Since the theory of relativity is wrong, why is Einstein sought after by
> the scientific community and the general public, and even regarded as a
> physicist greater than Newton? This involves very complicated
> sociological and political factors. Mr. Cao Guangjun, a Chinese scholar
> studying and working in Canada , wrote a long article to analyze this issue in detail.
>
> Cao Guangjun pointed out that although Einstein's theory of relativity is
> full of loopholes and is an out-and-out fallacy, the reason why it has
> not been criticized for a hundred years is that it is no longer a purely
> scientific issue, but a combination of political, social, cultural, and
> ethnic factors. The complex phenomenon of the body."
> .................
> "Since the Western world has always held the right to speak in science
> for hundreds of years, Einstein has become the incarnation and pronoun of
> science. In physics, anyone who dares to question Einstein's theory of
> relativity is an enemy of the scientific community. Anyone who opposes
> the theory of relativity cannot survive in this system.
>
> The attitude towards the theory of relativity has become a watershed.
> Anyone who opposes Einstein will be dubbed the so-called "minke". Under
> the banner of Einstein, science has become a religion, because the
> question of faith is beyond doubt.
>
> The question of truth is clear, but the question of attitude is unclear.
> Academic issues can be explained clearly, but interest issues cannot be
> explained. Therefore, despite the fact that the theory of relativity is
> wrong, many physicists who take the theory of relativity as their
> profession prefer to defend the theory of relativity unswervingly,
> because their jobs are more important than truth."
> ...................
> "For the rise of the Chinese nation in the world of science, Einstein's
> theory of general relativity is a mountain that must be overthrown. It is
> the most direct, effective and most advanced way to gain scientific
> discourse power for the Chinese people in the world, break through
> Einstein's theoretical system, establish a new theoretical system and replace it.
>
> If we don't break the mainstream physics world's worship of foreigners
> and foreigners, scientific research will always follow foreigners and
> dare not cross the Lei Chi step, we can only be a follower forever. The
> original innovation and revival of China's basic sciences is impossible
> to talk about, and it is simply impossible to achieve.
>
> Therefore, both in physics and philosophy, the theory of relativity must
> be overthrown. To overthrow the theory of relativity is to overthrow
> idealism, nothing is impossible, and it is necessary. Professor Li
> Zifeng's actions are not what some people think, he wants to gain fame
> through this action. Rather, it is hoped that through this move, the
> public can understand the truth of the matter and care about and support
> the research of non-mainstream physics who question the theory of relativity."
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> In the end, these chinese scientists are claiming that natural philosophy
> be reincorporated in physics as its natural source of questions
> and answers, and that mathematics should be applied carefully to avoid
> ABSTRACT derivations that mislead the reason of the enquirer.
>
> And YOU, as well I, can be those inquirers in physics (without a
> diploma). What it takes is the curiosity of inquiring minds, education to
> search, find and use proper mathematical tools and a good formation in
> HISTORY OF PHYSICS, NOT MATHEMATICS.

How self-serving of you! That just happens to fit you to a T.

>
> So, be free to think about what a physical model is or could be. There
> ARE NO RECIPES more than care, logic and intelligence.

And this is what just about every hack on this group wishes to proclaim.
You’re not novel. You’re vanilla. Verbose, but a very vanilla crank.

>
> And, again, I invite you to read my old blog (only 1 article) and find
> out which was the methods used by Kirchoff to propose his theorem
> on thermodynamics and radiant heat by 1860. You'll be surprised.
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables