October 28th, 2018 6:49 PM
—“CURT, WILL YOU TAKE ON THE PHYSICS COMMUNITY TOO?”—
(via the web site)
TL;DR version: “No”. 😉 But it’s a good example of how to use testimonialism to test competing theories.
—“Hi Curt, I have been following you on Facebook for several months and enjoy reading your ideas. I had been gradually moving away from Libertarianism, and Propertarianism clarified my skepticism of the former and connected many dots.”—
Welcome then. Glad I could help. 😉 We’re all in this together it seems…. lol
—“However, it became clear to me that youâve missed a few things, most notably the century of fraud in physics (Quantum Mechanics). As far as I can tell, a particular anti-scientific philosophy (Kant) gave way to the rejection of fundamental scientific principles like absolute space, cause and effect, and identity. A group of mostly German physicists (Bohr, Heisenberg, Mach, Schrodinger etc) werenât capable of solving the electron classically, and having adopted the aforementioned philosophy, devised the foundations of contemporary physics. Despite discordance with classic laws and experimentation, they invented (justified) their work with nonsense, claiming that classic laws breakdown at the subatomic level and that things could exist and not simultaneously. And they could only predict the behavior of Hydrogen (QM breaks down for everything higher on the periodic table). This has given us about a century of physics bullshit, like the currently fashionable multiverse theory, rampant curve fitting, and string theory. In the late 1980s, Hermann Haus derived the nonradiation condition, which coincidentally addressed a major problem pre-WW1 physicists faced: why electrons didnât radiate energy under acceleration. One of his students, Randall Mills, was able to solve the electron using exclusively classic physics (Newtonian mechanics, Maxwells equations, special relativity, and Hausâs nonradiation condition). This was a revolution that few people know about to this day. And it permits the classical solution of a variety of other problems (molecular bonding, the unification of all physical forces, behaviors of fundamental particles, where gravity comes from, falsifying the Big Bang since the the universe perpetually oscillates). He also discovered that Hydrogen could go below the âground stateâ (not really the ground state) and become one of a variety of nonradiative states he calls Hydrinos. Hydrinos are the Dark Matter that makes up nearly all of the universe. Mills has formed a company, Brilliant Light Power, that is working to commercialize applications of his work, primarily by utilizing Hydrinos as a novel energy source. I mention this because firstly, Millsâ story, and the corruption in physics, neatly adheres to your description of cognitive biases. Itâs worth investing time to learn about. Secondly, the technological implications are extraordinary. Assuming he brings something to market soon, this will turn out to be the ultrasound imate black swan event. The end of all conventional energy sources, the end of the prevailing geopolitical order, the end of conventional transportation sources, and potentially the end of government as we know it. From my vantage point, this could be one hell of a plot twist to the revolution youâre predicting. “—
I‘m aware of this of line of argument of course but it is a book length treatment (or more), that I don’t have the time, will, skill or credibility to put together … and I have my own field to deal with… lol
I falsify scientific work by searching for categories of consistent human error, very much like a psychologist or social scientists looks for examples of cognitive and social bias. If I don’t find those I deflate the argument and test whether the person is making a claim for which the knowledge upon which such a claim, is not dependent. And worse, if I find evidence of deception due to incentives. Most of scientific research that is questionable today consists of problems of statistical difficulty with insufficient preservation of constant relations because of a lack of operational knowledge or understanding, and because of the DENIAL of the OBVIOUS UNDERLYING MODEL.
The physicists are having a problem (I THINK) because the underlying model is obviously in conflict with the frame of reference necessary to measure their experiments. But I don’t think that’s a particularly uncommon perception. I think they just don’t know what else to do until they stumble (reverse engineer) that model by a lot of trial and error.
So while there are many competing theories, and I won’t address the one you mention specifically, you are correct (in part) on the origin of the frame of reference (model problem), it’s amplified even more so by the Mathiness Problem (mathematical idealism), and because of math the set problem, and together by the series of formulae they use that DO predict MOST. So I see them as prisoners from multiple dimensions, the philosophical one being the most distant – and I just dont think I can hold those people off in an argument they way I can theologians, philosophers, mathematicians, economists, jurists, and political scientists. I mean, it’s going to take someone with more of a vested interest in it than I am to work through that problem. And it is not a problem of ‘deceit’ as it is in economics, politics, and law. Just … well… a waste of a lot of pencils.
—“As a side note, why did you put ads on your website? They look terrible and cause the site to regularly reload, interrupting the reader. Get rid of them ASAP. Theyâre making you look bad.”—
I did not put ads on the site. It is because of the free hosting program forces them into the site. I have reasons for doing what I do. And no I don’t like it either. But for the present moment when I need to be able to move everything instantly, this is the most efficient method. I prefer to keep everything offshore. It’s just hard to do that at the moment for a host of reasons.
Thank you very much for the thoughtful idea.
Let’s keep fighting the good fight.