Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics

On Jun 2, 1:13*pm, GSS wrote:

I have been discussing related issues on these Usenet groups for the
last one decade or so. Very many participants in these discussions
have confirmed this viewpoint.

Do you believe that current theories of Physics are based on logical
foundations?

Jeez. Do you get paid by the word or something? Your huge essay (which
I presume is a brief summary of your book) really comes down to one
central issue. Physics has been replaced by mathematics. Physics is
defined as the study of phenomena. But today "advanced" physics has
become synonymous with 'advanced mathematics" [in some ways due to the
popular influence of Einstein]. This results in a strange affliction
taking over physics. It is the widespread belief that mathematical
models are more real than reality!

Now mathematics is an abstract human construct with no conditions
other than self-consistency. No other limitations exist. Logic,
causality, agreement with experiment are not part of it. Hence once
mathematics is taken as the ultimate test, it opens the door to all
manner of "insane" and non-physical dogma. We find the blind
resurrection of the long discredited "action at a distance" theories
(now called "nonlocal" for marketing purposes) that require
transluminal information transfer. We find field theories which
mathematically require continuous and differentiable functions used to
describe events which are clearly quantized. We find the famous
"spacetime" which is obviously just an imaginative mathematical
construct becoming a dogma that says the construct actually IS space.
This is equivalent to trying to ascertain where the "poles" of Laplace
analysis are stored in networks! Maybe there is a "pole rack"
somewhere in the components?

And of course it gets worse. The university system, insures by
training students to blindly accept the most illogical of assertions
as ultimate "science truth", we have developed not a science but a
religion. I call it "faith-based physics".

And it gets still worse. There is a political side to this as well as
government and especially the military in the post-atomic era have
realized there is power in technology and have taken over the funding
and control of science. This means that certain ideas that may have
too much political or military potential, are withdrawn from public
view and erased from the public record. Often such are ideas are then
replaced by nonsense to act as "placeholders".

GSS if correct, it's a sad, sad, state of affairs in our profession
today. But at least a few are wising up in spite of the shills hired
to make sure everyone stays asleep. There is some hope. Internet
discussion of such issues being one.

"Benj" wrote in message
...
On Jun 2, 1:13 pm, GSS wrote:

I have been discussing related issues on these Usenet groups for the
last one decade or so. Very many participants in these discussions
have confirmed this viewpoint.

Do you believe that current theories of Physics are based on logical
foundations?

Jeez. Do you get paid by the word or something? Your huge essay (which
I presume is a brief summary of your book) really comes down to one
central issue. Physics has been replaced by mathematics. Physics is
defined as the study of phenomena. But today "advanced" physics has
become synonymous with 'advanced mathematics" [in some ways due to the
popular influence of Einstein]. This results in a strange affliction
taking over physics. It is the widespread belief that mathematical
models are more real than reality!

Now mathematics is an abstract human construct with no conditions
other than self-consistency. No other limitations exist. Logic,
causality, agreement with experiment are not part of it. Hence once
mathematics is taken as the ultimate test, it opens the door to all
manner of "insane" and non-physical dogma. We find the blind
resurrection of the long discredited "action at a distance" theories
(now called "nonlocal" for marketing purposes) that require
transluminal information transfer. We find field theories which
mathematically require continuous and differentiable functions used to
describe events which are clearly quantized. We find the famous
"spacetime" which is obviously just an imaginative mathematical
construct becoming a dogma that says the construct actually IS space.
This is equivalent to trying to ascertain where the "poles" of Laplace
analysis are stored in networks! Maybe there is a "pole rack"
somewhere in the components?

And of course it gets worse. The university system, insures by
training students to blindly accept the most illogical of assertions
as ultimate "science truth", we have developed not a science but a
religion. I call it "faith-based physics".

And it gets still worse. There is a political side to this as well as
government and especially the military in the post-atomic era have
realized there is power in technology and have taken over the funding
and control of science. This means that certain ideas that may have
too much political or military potential, are withdrawn from public
view and erased from the public record. Often such are ideas are then
replaced by nonsense to act as "placeholders".

GSS if correct, it's a sad, sad, state of affairs in our profession
today. But at least a few are wising up in spite of the shills hired
to make sure everyone stays asleep. There is some hope. Internet
discussion of such issues being one.

==========================================
Ah, would that it even were mathematics!
Physics has been replaced by sci-fi, nobody sane would claim
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same.
That's not mathematics, that's insanity.

On Jun 3, 5:46 pm, Benj wrote:
On Jun 2, 1:13 pm, GSS wrote:

I have been discussing related issues on these Usenet groups for the
last one decade or so. Very many participants in these discussions
have confirmed this viewpoint.

Do you believe that current theories of Physics are based on logical
foundations?

Jeez. Do you get paid by the word or something? Your huge essay (which
I presume is a brief summary of your book) really comes down to one
central issue. Physics has been replaced by mathematics. Physics is
defined as the study of phenomena. But today "advanced" physics has
become synonymous with 'advanced mathematics" [in some ways due to the
popular influence of Einstein]. This results in a strange affliction
taking over physics. It is the widespread belief that mathematical
models are more real than reality!

No, mathematics is an essential and powerful tool, which can be used
to analyze the physical concepts and their interrelations with great
precision and conciseness. If some mathematicians misuse mathematics
to dominate and brow-beat physicists, it is not the fault of
mathematics. Physicists must learn to use mathematics as a powerful
tool, just as the engineers do.

Now mathematics is an abstract human construct with no conditions
other than self-consistency. No other limitations exist. Logic,
causality, agreement with experiment are not part of it. Hence once
mathematics is taken as the ultimate test, it opens the door to all
manner of "insane" and non-physical dogma. We find the blind
resurrection of the long discredited "action at a distance" theories
(now called "nonlocal" for marketing purposes) that require
transluminal information transfer. We find field theories which
mathematically require continuous and differentiable functions used to
describe events which are clearly quantized. We find the famous
"spacetime" which is obviously just an imaginative mathematical
construct becoming a dogma that says the construct actually IS space.
This is equivalent to trying to ascertain where the "poles" of Laplace
analysis are stored in networks! Maybe there is a "pole rack"
somewhere in the components?

I have found during my prolonged discussions on these Usenet forums
that most scientists now agree with the notion of spacetime as a
mathematical model - a 4D space-time manifold. Spacetime is no longer
regarded as a physical entity.

In General Relativity, the Riemannian 4D space-time manifold is being
used as a differential scale template for getting the trajectories of
objects as geodesic curves. There is no doubt, what so ever, that GR
is just a mathematical model used for obtaining the trajectories of
objects as geodesic curves! However, the founders of GR did attempt to
elevate this mathematical model to the status of a physical theory by
assuming the 4D space-time manifold to be a physical spacetime
continuum and also assuming that the mass-energy content of a
gravitating body somehow controls the metric of this physical entity.
Once we realize that 4D spacetime manifold is just an abstract
mathematical construct and not a physical entity, then it is quite a
simple matter to understand that GR is just a mathematical model and
not a physical theory.

http://sites.google.com/a/fundamenta...attredirects=0

And of course it gets worse. The university system, insures by
training students to blindly accept the most illogical of assertions
as ultimate "science truth", we have developed not a science but a
religion. I call it "faith-based physics".

And it gets still worse. There is a political side to this as well as
government and especially the military in the post-atomic era have
realized there is power in technology and have taken over the funding
and control of science. This means that certain ideas that may have
too much political or military potential, are withdrawn from public
view and erased from the public record. Often such are ideas are then
replaced by nonsense to act as "placeholders".

GSS if correct, it's a sad, sad, state of affairs in our profession
today. But at least a few are wising up in spite of the shills hired
to make sure everyone stays asleep. There is some hope. Internet
discussion of such issues being one.

Hope sustains life!

"GSS" wrote in message
...
Friends,

Hello crackpot.
..
..
umm...
..
..

Goodbye crackpot.

On Jun 1, 10:17*am, GSS wrote:
[snip all, unread]

Nobody has purchased your book so you decided to spew here.

This is unappreciated. Go away.

On Jun 2, 4:25*am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:17*am, GSS wrote:
[snip all, unread]

Nobody has purchased your book so you decided to spew here.

This is unappreciated. Go away.

I do not appreciate your close minded attitude!

"GSS" wrote in message
...
On Jun 2, 4:25 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:17 am, GSS wrote:
[snip all, unread]

Nobody has purchased your book so you decided to spew here.

This is unappreciated. Go away.

I do not appreciate your close minded attitude!
---


Quit whining when people call you out for what you are, crackpot.

On Jun 2, 10:20*am, GSS wrote:
On Jun 2, 4:25*am, Eric Gisse wrote:

On Jun 1, 10:17*am, GSS wrote:
[snip all, unread]

Nobody has purchased your book so you decided to spew here.

This is unappreciated. Go away.

I do not appreciate your close minded attitude!

Unfortunately, here in Google Groups (aka Usenet/newsgroups) you're
lucky if not being shot in the back of your head. The mostly
republican Zionist Nazis in charge of most everything that counts, as
such they seem to dislike anyone suggesting a revision (good or bad)
of anything.

~ BG

On Jun 3, 7:07 am, BradGuth wrote:
...........

Unfortunately, here in Google Groups (aka Usenet/newsgroups) you're
lucky if not being shot in the back of your head.

No, that is not the case. The fact is that neither anybody here can
ever shoot me in the back of my head nor anybody is ever going to even
think of shooting me in any way.

Of course, some of them will like to shoot my book out of existence.
But majority of them will simply like to close their eyes and feel as
if such a book does not exist at all.

The mostly
republican Zionist Nazis in charge of most everything that counts, as
such they seem to dislike anyone suggesting a revision (good or bad)
of anything.

~ BG

Isn't it a normal psychological compulsion for most of the mediocre
persons?

It may appear that making sensible and plausible suggestions for any
advancement or revision of the status quo is a tough job; but the
testing and evaluation of such suggestions is in reality the toughest
and most challenging task which most people would like to avoid.

GSS

On Jun 4, 6:53*am, GSS wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:07 am, BradGuth wrote:
..........



Unfortunately, here in Google Groups (aka Usenet/newsgroups) you're
lucky if not being shot in the back of your head.

No, that is not the case. The fact is that neither anybody here can
ever shoot me in the back of my head nor anybody is ever going to even
think of shooting me in any way.

Of course, some of them will like to shoot my book out of existence.
But majority of them will simply like to close their eyes and feel as
if such a book does not exist at all.

The mostly
republican Zionist Nazis in charge of most everything that counts, as
such they seem to dislike anyone suggesting a revision (good or bad)
of anything.

*~ BG

Isn't it a normal psychological compulsion for most of the mediocre
persons?

It may appear that making sensible and plausible suggestions for any
advancement or revision of the status quo is a tough job; but the
testing and evaluation of such suggestions is in reality the toughest
and most challenging task which most people would like to avoid.

GSS

Most of science and physics expertise will only test if publicly
funded, and then look only for whatever supports their mainstream
mindset. The spendy and time consuming GPB/SR fiasco is a good
example of mainstream cover-thy-butt via obfuscation on steroids.

~ BG