Understanding electromagnetism

[Brain Man]

Brain Man's main arguments are:

There is no ox so dumb as the orthodox

and

Why do I need mathematics?

As Bertrand Russell had noted in "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish" (Unpopular Essays):

But if conformity has its dangers, so has nonconformity.

Some "advanced thinkers" are of the opinion that any one who differs from the conventional opinion must be in the right. This is a delusion; if it were not, truth would be easier to come by than it is. There are infinite possibilities of error, and more cranks take up unfashionable errors than unfashionable truths.

if you follow the logic of the above article to its conclusion then basically there are far too many overqualified, razor sharp grant grazers chomping on hills and too few valley crossers which are needed to lead us forward or stop ourselves going backwards chasing bosons that dont exist as the case may be.

The hill grazers dont want new ideas or leaps in progress, they want to keep things as they are. The article is too polite. its really just about clever career chasers getting their money and security dragging science into the dark ages. These guys dont want anything new, they just want to fart around digging in with what they have, and shutting out everything else.

in other words the conservatives are now in power, but science is hardly a democracy so its going to stay that way and get worse because science operates by following rules of procedure and providing evidence.

e.g. what the article says then you cannot beat conservatism holding back science because

The grant grazer/hill climbers can keep upping the ante on what defines good professional scientific procedure. As garret lisi stated keep demanding more hoops to jump through until the climate is completely rigid.

What constitutes evidence becomes more and more expensive and constrained in direct proportion to the professional demands above. Has anybody here tried to fill out a grant form ? I did one for European Research Council last year, or i almost did and gave up. Forget how good the ideas are, you cannot even apply for the grant without fulfilling the present criteria for professionalism on many, many levels. i.e.

Most importantly you need somebody who has conducted research previously to head the project. So if we are now in a climate of climbing smaller and smaller hills, then the only people who can head research proposals are hill climbers. Do you think they will be willing to manage your revolutionary idea. I dont think so, they would be scared on too many levels, worried what their colleagues would think if it went wrong, unable to deal with the large risk etc. Often unable an a cognitive level to deal with processing any kind of great leap conceptually at all.

If somebody has revolutionary ideas don't ask them for evidence, because they arent going to be able to give it to you. Nobody will ever let them. If they are professionally working in science then they have to go through so much shit their mind will not be of a type capable of any great creative jump. Not because its a conspiracy, but because this is just how humans self organize and settle into large rigid group industries after an initial growth phase of change set off by a minority.

The delusion currently is to believe that there are no revolutions worth having that a minority can still pull off. You hear that all the time as the justification for the current situation. You hear it all the time in the history of nothing ever happening. It has to be large group organization to pull anything off today. All out challenges need the current system is what you will hear from the people running the show, and their ambitious hill climbing... I mean ambitious walk to the end of street for a packet of cigarette employees

[Brain Man]

Einstein visualized everything then needed help with his maths which included his wife.

sorry i meant to say

"Einstein visualized everything then needed "some" help with his maths which included his wife"

[Twiglet]

Brainman - Lisi's criticisms have some validity IMO. Scientists can be a conservative bunch who would rather trundle along doing their thing than give attention to every new idea which comes their way.

By the same token, that doesn't mean that every crackpot with an idea to peddle needs to be treated seriously. The ideas being put forward here in this thread, and the time one, and the string one, aren't new. They are mostly blatant misunderstanding and misrepresentation of existing science (quoted via wiki) coupled with explanations which predict nothing, prove nothing, and largely just don't make sense. None the less, they are being presented as fact.

It's great to be open minded, but not so much so that your brain falls out.

[colubridae]

Brainman - Lisi's criticisms have some validity IMO. Scientists can be a conservative bunch who would rather trundle along doing their thing than give attention to every new idea which comes their way.

By the same token, that doesn't mean that every crackpot with an idea to peddle needs to be treated seriously. The ideas being put forward here in this thread, and the time one, and the string one, aren't new. They are mostly blatant misunderstanding and misrepresentation of existing science (quoted via wiki) coupled with explanations which predict nothing, prove nothing, and largely just don't make sense. None the less, they are being presented as fact.

It's great to be open minded, but not so much so that your brain falls out.

errr and toilet paper (sorry book) promotion.

At least lamont and Mandelson have no profit axe to grind.

[Brain Man]

Brainman - Lisi's criticisms have some validity IMO. Scientists can be a conservative bunch who would rather trundle along doing their thing than give attention to every new idea which comes their way.

By the same token, that doesn't mean that every crackpot with an idea to peddle needs to be treated seriously. The ideas being put forward here in this thread, and the time one, and the string one, aren't new. They are mostly blatant misunderstanding and misrepresentation of existing science (quoted via wiki) coupled with explanations which predict nothing, prove nothing, and largely just don't make sense. None the less, they are being presented as fact.

It's great to be open minded, but not so much so that your brain falls out.

Again this wiki accusation against farsight. Farsight has a tendency to understate his sources, and doesnt even trailer the fact he has a well received book on the subject stuffed with references.

In the end a man only has so much time to deal with critics. If you want to pigeonhole farsight as a wikipedia kid with no depth, then he will pigeonhole you as one of the now hordes of closed minded and not bother to put any similar effort to explain where hes coming from.

i.e. The vortice model of the electron comes from Dr williamson a CERN physicist with maths to expound it. I only found that out by actually exploring farsights work and asking him for more explanation without giving the guy a hard time.

Again though i always have to say, its your loss not exploring these new aspects fully. Obviously there is comfort in being a hillwalker closing out possible answers to big questions otherwise people wouldnt spend their lives dedicated to doing it, and feel so much anxiety when a conceptual leap is placed in front of them.

Others of us are different, we feel anxiety with mundane progress and only feel fulfilled when tackling something really big.

As the article says you need both types for progress, and currently there is an imbalance.

[ChildInAZoo]

Let the hill climbers do the maths, they are more technically proficient anyway.

I don't know what you mean by "hill climbers", but how do you expect any insights from Farsight when he probably cannot even follow the most rudimentary presentation of the details of the physics he discusses? It's almost like asking him for insight into the work of Shakespeare when he has seen nothing but a trailer to a film adaptation of one of Shakespeare's plays.

What is math but modeling after the idea anyway. Einstein visualized everything then needed help with his maths which included his wife.

http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm ... relativity

Einstein was one of the worlds mathematical geniuses. That he needed help was because he was using newly developed mathematics for very complicated circumstances. As your reference states, "The math of General Relativity goes a long way to prove Einstein’s genius."

Since 1915, there have been many textbooks that make the mathematics easier to learn and understand. You are trying to follow the "insights" of someone who has apparently been working on a fundamental physics theory for years either without rying to learn the relevant mathematics or without being able to learn the relevant mathematics. In either case, he cannot have any real understanding of what he discusses. He uses your iconoclasm, your ignorance of the subject matter, and his own rhetorical techniques to sucker you in. You seem unwilling to entertain the notion that people reject Farsight because he is wrong.

[Brain Man]

Let the hill climbers do the maths, they are more technically proficient anyway.

I don't know what you mean by "hill climbers", but how do you expect any insights from Farsight when he probably cannot even follow the most rudimentary presentation of the details of the physics he discusses? It's almost like asking him for insight into the work of Shakespeare when he has seen nothing but a trailer to a film adaptation of one of Shakespeare's plays.

What is math but modeling after the idea anyway. Einstein visualized everything then needed help with his maths which included his wife.

http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm ... relativity

Einstein was one of the worlds mathematical geniuses. That he needed help was because he was using newly developed mathematics for very complicated circumstances. As your reference states, "The math of General Relativity goes a long way to prove Einstein’s genius."

Since 1915, there have been many textbooks that make the mathematics easier to learn and understand. You are trying to follow the "insights" of someone who has apparently been working on a fundamental physics theory for years either without rying to learn the relevant mathematics or without being able to learn the relevant mathematics. In either case, he cannot have any real understanding of what he discusses. He uses your iconoclasm, your ignorance of the subject matter, and his own rhetorical techniques to sucker you in. You seem unwilling to entertain the notion that people reject Farsight because he is wrong.

Ive not got a problem if farsight is wrong. This is hard to determine as mostly when you read his threads it has the feel of reaction for the sake of it, nitpicking, taking stuff out of context, strawmen etc. A no new prophets allowed mentality. Now i am digging into the references behind his work they seem of high quality. i.e I am reading the paper "is the electron a photon with toroidal topology" by Dr williamson and attempting to follow the mathematics. It seems to have a good foundation, although i am only at page 6, perhaps you can critique it. That is where the concept of the electron vortice comes from.

What has Farsight done, but take all these isolated fragments from fine minds and integrated them into intutive explanations. So if somebody wants to put together some coherent debunking of relativity+ then it would be good if they can lay it out clearly in a document in a scientific manner that is also just as clear to follow and gives full credence to critique the rerferences behind it such as williamson at the same time. Otherwise i cant take any of that stuff seriously.

Einstein was proficient at maths in so much as was proficient at other technical interests. His ideas and concepts in physics were what were considered "genius" and the maths his tools to chisel them into shape, unless you can tell me different. i.e. What innovative theories did he come up with purely because the results of an equation pointed him in a new directions. I bought a copy of his theory of relativity years ago. There was not much maths in that at all.

BTW hillclimber is a term from the physics article in post 77 on the previous page. Worth reading. If that analysis is correct, we are in big trouble.

[ChildInAZoo]

Ive not got a problem if farsight is wrong. This is hard to determine as mostly when you read his threads it has the feel of reaction for the sake of it, nitpicking, taking stuff out of context, strawmen etc.

I have not taken anything of his out of context. If anything, I have asked for the proper context of his statements. Likewise, I have never attacked a straw man argument of his. If anything, I have asked for more clarification of his statements. There is a lot that one could pick apart in his posts, but one has to start somewhere!

A no new prophets allowed mentality. Now i am digging into the references behind his work they seem of high quality. i.e I am reading the paper "is the electron a photon with toroidal topology" by Dr williamson and attempting to follow the mathematics. It seems to have a good foundation, although i am only at page 6, perhaps you can critique it. That is where the concept of the electron vortice comes from.

OK, now see if you can get to the part where a) his construction can reproduce the Stern-Gerlach experiments and b) his construction has charge. Aside from any mathematical flaws in his paper, these are two criteria his construction has to meet before we can call it an electron.

What has Farsight done, but take all these isolated fragments from fine minds and integrated them into intutive explanations.

This is the same thing that conspiracy theorists do.

So if somebody wants to put together some coherent debunking of relativity+ then it would be good if they can lay it out clearly in a document in a scientific manner that is also just as clear to follow and gives full credence to critique the rerferences behind it such as williamson at the same time. Otherwise i cant take any of that stuff seriously.

It's easy to find such a document: pick up a college level physics textbook. All you need is right there.

[Farsight]

Some good stuff there, Brain-man. Your take on the situation is more or less correct. I give coherent descriptions which make sense and are backed up with sound logic and references to the likes of Einstein and Maxwell along with scientific evidence. But my detractors are unable to show where the errors are, and instead they bluster and retreat behind mathematics and abuse. They are dismissive for no good reason, and this is reflected in the difficulty that professional physicists have in getting a novel or challenging paper into a journal.

[colubridae]

Some good stuff there, Brain-man. Your take on the situation is more or less correct. I give coherent descriptions which make sense and are backed up with sound logic and references to the likes of Einstein and Maxwell along with scientific evidence. But my detractors are unable to show where the errors are, and instead they bluster and retreat behind mathematics and abuse. They are dismissive for no good reason, and this is reflected in the difficulty that professional physicists have in getting a novel or challenging paper into a journal.

Cobblers...

Journals are full of good work. Novel and challenging

You are here because your work is twaddle and no-one else takes you seriously.

[Brain Man]

Some good stuff there, Brain-man. Your take on the situation is more or less correct. I give coherent descriptions which make sense and are backed up with sound logic and references to the likes of Einstein and Maxwell along with scientific evidence. But my detractors are unable to show where the errors are, and instead they bluster and retreat behind mathematics and abuse. They are dismissive for no good reason, and this is reflected in the difficulty that professional physicists have in getting a novel or challenging paper into a journal.

Cobblers...

Journals are full of good work. Novel and challenging

You are here because your work is twaddle and no-one else takes you seriously.

People take me seriously and the reason i am here is because i was trying to find farsight after RDF closed.

For a very simple reason. People in biosciences working with physics reconstituted in the complexity of organic material need intuitive models which attempt to integrate all aspects and leave no stone unturned. Seeing as most physicists are either obsessed with subatomics or practically applying our incomplete knowledge in industry, there is no choice but to turn to theorists, like farsight, borgais etc. Basically anybody with a theory today appears to be on the fringe, no matter how well qualified.

You simply cannot look at the function of the nervous system for example without having an inside out conceptual understanding of time, charge and electromagnetism. With the current understanding available you have to either accept whats available and remain limited in your proposals or seek out guys like farsight, accept the risk and take the chance of increasing your scope.

[colubridae]

People take me seriously

I don’t

Some people take me seriously. I assume you don’t
Your point is?

and the reason i am here is because i was trying to find farsight after RDF closed.

Frasight is john duffield. I assume that you can get his direct e-mail from the web.
Hope this helps.

For a very simple reason. People in biosciences working with physics reconstituted in the complexity of organic material need intuitive models which attempt to integrate all aspects and leave no stone unturned.

Pretty fucking dumb if they didn’t. Your point is?

Seeing as most physicists are either obsessed with subatomics or practically applying our incomplete knowledge in industry, there is no choice but to turn to theorists, like farsight, borgais etc.

Cobblers. They investigate the boundaries of our knowledge. Not just subatomics. Farsight may or may not be genuine. But he is still failing in his science.

Basically anybody with a theory today appears to be on the fringe, no matter how well qualified.

Cobblers. String theory etc.
Farsight is a self-admitted amateur scientist. I don’t know his qualifications.
Based on the way he does his science they shouldn’t hold much water.

You simply cannot look at the function of the nervous system for example without having an inside out conceptual understanding of time, charge and electromagnetism.

Absolutely. Plus several important but obvious bits you fail to mention.

With the current understanding available you have to either accept whats available and remain limited in your proposals

One is limited by how the universe works. Not by scientific study. X-men is fiction.

or seek out guys like farsight, accept the risk and take the chance of increasing your scope.

What are you talking about. Increasing what scope? We are on an atheist website mainly devoted to humour.
Is this your idea of taking the plunge? Or are you simply trying to get people to buy his book? Or are you trying to validate a ‘theory’ by debating chamber?

Either he can make a prediction and test his ‘thing’ or it’s bollocks.
And don’t forget the best he will ever do is find evidence to support his ‘stuff’. it will never be proved.

[ChildInAZoo]

Brain Man,


What you are saying does not make a whole lot of sense. Rather than trying to go to an academic source, to find someone with actual skills, you are trying to work with someone with demonstrably no skills in the field. Why don't you try attending some physics conferences? Or better yet, some biophysics conferences. There you can find people who have both theories and skills.

[Brain Man]

You simply cannot look at the function of the nervous system for example without having an inside out conceptual understanding of time, charge and electromagnetism.

Absolutely. Plus several important but obvious bits you fail to mention.

I picked out just the areas farsight addresses. You couldn't put all the physics/chemical/systems aspects of biology into several. It would be multiple dozens.

or seek out guys like farsight, accept the risk and take the chance of increasing your scope.

What are you talking about. Increasing what scope? We are on an atheist website mainly devoted to humour.

According to the thread category this is called serious discussion. Farsight and many here are posting and debating after dawkins axed his forum. I havent looked round the rest of this forum yet. I presumed with the discussions here it was helping to take the load from dawkins site.

And don’t forget the best he will ever do is find evidence to support his ‘stuff’. it will never be proved.=

if you are a scientist you should know better than to make such a statement.

For a very simple reason. People in biosciences working with physics reconstituted in the complexity of organic material need intuitive models which attempt to integrate all aspects and leave no stone unturned.

Pretty fucking dumb if they didn’t. Your point is?

Obviously that farsight appears to have skill in this. So do others like him such as Harley borgais. I am stunned completely by their depth some times. They present theories that look amateur but when they are questioned they have an inside out knowledge i have not found in the graduates i had previously gone to for answers, on physics that is outside biosciences basic realms. All i was getting previously was a parroting of very old stuff. So if i asked how does a B field exert force i was being told, "well we dont know, its something to do with virtual photons and cite a fenyman diagram with maths, none of which provides a solution to the question".

After a lot of frustration going over years, I consult what appear on the surface like amateur new agers and i get complete inside out descriptions. I think surely not, there cant be depth, how can i cite this, they must be wrong etc. But then i change subject, ask about some aspect they are not presenting ideas on. Immediate in depth answers that are consistent with what is known to a high degree of knowledge. These people seem to know more than their peers. Look at farsights threads. He has hordes attacking him, outgunning him over years, yet he still replies, still presents solutions, not to everything, but you cannot say this guy is not deep into this stuff, and that he does it for free just amplifies whether he is commited in a good or bad way. So yes i am always asking myself is it just obsession with delusion. For a while i was thinking just that.

Then there is the Garret Lisi story an upmarket example of this new breed. Then you read the article above (post 77) written by experts trying to understand whats going on today. THEN its becoming crystal clear Farsight is 100% spot on. Groupthink prevails, the article is correct. Physics is stagnant and in trouble. Richard Dawkins lets Brian Greene post expensive videos on string theory this LHC spends countless millions looking for bosons that these new breed of marginalized intuitive guys are saying do not exist. Its clearly obvious the whole show is being steered by conservatism, money, jobs, rigidity on paradigms. Just like the article says. You may say string theory is not conservative, but it is. Its drives home the idea that we need to turn to higher convulations of paradigms. More maths, more complexity, more quantum abstraction which in turn increases the need for a greater intensity of similiar resources to prove or disprove it. String theory is just Einsteins path on steroids.

If you want to deny it on you go. However i am fascinated. I mean what motivates this ?

Is it fear of large concepts. Fear of rough and ready scientists. Fear of unqualified people ?

Or laziness. Having to alter your views takes work, especially when it comes to fundamentals. Who can be bothered. You need a problem to solve first to motivate you. So if no problem is present, and you have enough physics to fill out 70% of reality, then thats enough to keep you happy basically.

Or a protective mechanism. Some kind of prosocial hero drive. The desire to be seen by your group to be protecting cherised information and values.

Maybe the above just applies to forums, maybe as the experts say as the high level it just basic drive for status and job as a scientists, where everybody gets their plot on the bit of land, as long as nobody does anything to rock the boat. i.e. Present anything which alters a fundamental premise. So its not science anymore, its become politics. And you cannot deny science is becoming politics. Increasingly politicians are citing scientific methods to back their policies. Big business appears to be adept at steering how research is framed.

So Never mind whether the guy with the new idea is even right or wrong. First of all i have to analyse whether the reactions to him are due to these common reasons, as well as the lot provided in the article in post 77, and what does it really mean now when somebody tells me they are into science today. Is it like being part of a political party defending territory, or religious citing mantras from textbooks. If thats the way it is, thats the way it is.

So yeh, if youre going to give this guy a hard time, ill be giving you one to try and figure where you are at. Yes maybe it happens here on rationalia. A strange outcome. I would never have predicted it.

[Brain Man]

Brain Man,


What you are saying does not make a whole lot of sense. Rather than trying to go to an academic source, to find someone with actual skills, you are trying to work with someone with demonstrably no skills in the field. Why don't you try attending some physics conferences? Or better yet, some biophysics conferences. There you can find people who have both theories and skills.

Ive done the biophysics conference route. Ive asked other physicists by the traditional academic route. i.e you write from an official position or get a reference from somebody with a connection.

Very nice places to be, when people are not busy with their own work they do try, but i did not get answers to basic questions like the structure of charge, the electron, and a complete solution to magnetism. basically they are confused about this themselves.