GENIUS FORUMS

http://members.westnet.com.au/paradigm/essay1.pdf

Finally I've discovered someone who has done some similar work on the fundamental duality TOE concepts I've been yapping on about for ages.

I'm hoping this essay will saved me a hell of lot of time.

What an excellent article.

I knew there was something to what you have been trying to say for all this time. :)

.

Leyla Shen wrote:What an excellent article.

I knew there was something to what you have been trying to say for all this time. :)

.

Can you sum it up for me? Seriously. I just cannot understand the point of it. It really seemed like gibberish.

Establishment physics is the position the subject finds itself today in "mainstream" science. It has arrived at a point where certain partial theories have been unified (that of magnetism and electricity to that of the electromagnetic force, for example) but it still finds itself in need of what has been dubbed the Grand Unified Theory (GUT).

Particle physics cannot/does not explain the laws of gravity, a phenomenon of what is therefore called classical physics, yet both theories are true within their own (therefore) limited fields of observation. So, there are—apparently—two perfectly workable, separate theories for phenomena that are not “unified”; or, universal (bearing in mind that it is the universe that we are trying to explain, not just parts or aspects of it that seem to have no logical or phenomenal connection with other parts.)

This is what establishment physics has to offer, so far.

In effect, this guy is offering a unified (universal) theory by way of paradigm shift, which is rather interesting!

.

PS: He has used this paradigm shift to effectively argue against some of the major assumptions in establishment physics based on what he calls the abstractionist paradigm: the speed of light being one such example.

.

from the article,

I conducted an investigation into what we observe, and how physics interprets what we observe. This begun with a simple electrostatic experiment. When I rubbed a glass rod and placed it near a suspended pith ball it attracted the pith ball. Physics sees this attraction as the result of dislike or opposite charges. This begs the question of how dislike or opposite charges can cause attraction. I decided that the attraction was caused by the pith ball absorbing the emission of the glass rod. This means that dislike or opposite charges are objects of different,
or inequivalent, levels of emission and that repulsion is caused by objects pushing away from each other due to their equivalence of emission.

Emission of what? Repulsion by what?

As everything in the Universe is subject to attraction, I decided that everything absorbs and emits as a product of its existence. It then occurred to me that all attraction from the micro-scale to the macro-scale is result of the absorption of
emission, whether it be between sub-atomic particles or planets and stars or galaxies. From this flowed the following observations. Objects absorb and emit via their emission which involves a field that extends beyond the object.

He decided? Heh

Any physical field is subject to being measured. If this hypothesis has merit, then the next step is to experiment with the premise.

The emission field of an object falls off in density with the distance from the object.

There is another "emission field" that fits this same criteria; gravity.

As emission would be composed of matter/energy all objects are either increasing or decreasing in matter/energy at a particular moment in time. Objects are either a state of absorption exceeding emission, or emission exceeding absorption.

Or, "all things change?" Brilliant!

This led me to see the Earth absorbing emission through its emission field and into its core via the poles. Finally, I decided that the Universe must have a groundstate of absorption and emission and rotation, because I had realized that the big bang theory was wrong.

He decided? Ah, then it must be so.

A favorite measurement of physics is the speed of light. This is often referred to as the speed of light in a vacuum. Light is part of the spectrum of emission and the vacuum of space is composed of emission. Emission travels throughinteracting with emission. It's the convergence of different levels of emission which is measured as a wavelength. The time that it takes for emission to travel through emission is dependent upon the density of the emission being traveled through. Other than in a context of uniform emission, such as at a given distant
above the Earth, the speed at which emission travels through emission varies. The idea that light has a uniform speed and that it can be used to measure cosmic distance is wrong.

Nevermind the results of all that data and the resultant technolgies based on the premise that light is a relative constant. For our spatial frame, lightspeed is a constant. For another spatial frame, it could very well have a different constant. But it has not been shown to be true.

Essentially, he was saying that as emission traveled across the Universe it increased in wavelength as it dissipated. The name of this astronomer was Fritz Zwicky. He was right.

Evidence and proof please. The Doppler effect is and has been reproduceable. The "tired light" theory of stripping a photon's energy would also be exagerated under extreme gravity conditions or dust cloud interaction and this has been shown repeatedly not to be the case. There are several other probelms with the theory that arise when trying to apply it to the observed universe.

During my investigation I considered Quantum theory.

During my investigation of quackery, the quacks always talked this way about their investigations and their discoveries. It is mental masturbation. Reproduce it physically. Then I will jump on the bandwagon.

This theory is based on the observation that energy (emission) is emitted in discrete packets or quanta, it is “quantized”.

I would like to tackle linguistically, this idea of "emission." Emission implies solidity of substance, a formed object from which to emit something, like a radio tower or a radioactive isotope. Conceptually speaking, it is a marginally strong concept when thinking of objects as non-fluid. But in reality, all objects are fluid, especially when venturing into the spatial realm of quanta. As such, the idea of "emission" is positing a solidity and intransience on a particular object or objects that cannot possibly exist at that spatial perspective.

The idea of "object" on the quantum level is itself suspect. These are energetic structures if taken as a snapshot at a particular point of time, but the fluidity of those structures over time (usually fractions of milliseconds) is one of their unavoidable characteristics, as shown through repeated experimentation and mathematical predictions.

I then turned my attention to Relativity theory.

Great.

This theory sees time as an independent dimension.

This is exactly, 100% wrong. Time was considered an independent dimension BEFORE Einstein's thought experiments (the traveller on the train, the twin paradox, etc.). The purpose of relativity as a subject was to display the conceptual and subjective basis of an individual's understanding of time and how it varied from circumstance to circumstance and individual to individual.

When an atomic clock, which is a obvious
measure of the absorption and emission of matter, is placed at a distance above the surface of the Earth it will show a time that is slower than another atomic clock placed on the surface of the Earth. This is due to the difference in the density of the impacting emission and not the difference in the motion of the
clocks, as claimed by Relativity theory.

Aha, now I see the emotional need to categorize this phenomenon this way. The idea of "emission" is just an attempt to bring an Earth-based clarity to his understanding of cause and effect, like a kind of umbilicus that clarifies itself to comfort, without all the need to posit one's imagination into different relative spatial frames of reference to see. It is a metaphor.

The Universe is infinite in space and time.

Laughable and bordering on religiosity. In the same way that time cannot possibly exist without the interactions of objects, these same objects cannot possibly interact in an infinite universe. The entire premise of an infinitude makes a mockery of the absolutely obvious transient nature of the universe. In an infinite time frame, all interactions stop at one point with no impetus to begin them again. The energetic "emissions" have played themselves out. Theoretically, this could very well have happened at an infinite time in the past from where we are now. But how can an infinite time frame exist contained within another infinite time frame without them being the same time frame? Unless of course, we are talking simply infinity +1.

You never know, I suppose. Certainly I don't claim to know. And I too have done "investigations."

I've read enough, stopping at page 4.

I have decided and Tharan has confirmed for me that this article is complete gibberish.

mess up

Like tharan pointed out, one of his initial contructs of the article is something he just "decided". Utter trash. It scares me that some people think this is a work indicating intelligence of any kind.

Tharan:

Since this is a philosophy forum, I think you are missing the most salient point. Certainly, you are missing the crux of the argument most worthy of attention in my view. What we have here is a man who is calling for a return to what I will call Newtonian physics. This was abundantly clear to me from the very first paragraph.

It’s kind of strange that you missed this, Tharan, and felt that the connection you make below should come as a surprise to anyone who can actually think beyond emotionalism and attachment to experimental physics:

There is another "emission field" that fits this same criteria; gravity.

Nevertheless, I did a google on the man and I think he presents the argument most worthy of consideration well enough, which I present for consideration (or not):

Physics, with its reliance upon mathematics and other abstractions, is not a truly fundamental or strictly materialist perspective. Itâs best described as an abstractionist paradigm. This paradigm is prepared to sacrifice materialism and causality for the sake of its quantifications. Much of what is claimed to be solid scientific evidence is, in fact, merely interpretation within the conceptual framework of the abstractionist paradigm. The true scientific and materialistic nature of the Universe resides beyond the limitations of the abstractionist paradigm, and fundamental to this nature are the phenomena of attraction and repulsion.

Do you have an argument against the bolded part of his statement above?

Here’s the link.

http://thinkers.net/magazine/Learning/R ... ysics.html

As for you, millipodium: for once, will you just try formulating an actual thought of your own? Even if it is based on someone else’s.

.

Thanks for finding that other article Leyla, much appreciated. Reading this second article has increased my belief that his theory is intrinsically correct. I still haven't got around to studying his paradigm diagram (could be a while), and can’t really comment much until I do, but I find the way everything fits together is astounding. Put it this way, if I had of undertaken the same research as he has, I am certain I would have come to the same conclusions.

I've been concentrating on determining how the groundstate he refers to is caused, whereas he has worked from this point onwards. He is more technically adept at science than me, but I'm not sure if he is adept enough to convince anyone who hasn't really thought about and accepted duality as a fundamental principle.

James wrote:

He is more technically adept at science than me, but I'm not sure if he is adept enough to convince anyone who hasn't really thought about and accepted duality as a fundamental principle.

Let them pig out on cake, and find their slobbering gods when they are dead, I say...

.

Hey Leyla. I was thinking the exact same things tharan was. I just couldn't believe something so stupid would be lauded by anyone. This is quackery. You're an idiot for thinking this an intelligent work.

James. Don't know science, haven't read the diagrams, but you're pretty sure? WTF? Are you a moron?

millipodium dribbled:

Hey Leyla. I was thinking the exact same things tharan was. I just couldn't believe something so stupid would be lauded by anyone. This is quackery. You're an idiot for thinking this an intelligent work.

Man, you are so full of shit. But, because I am such a generous person, and since you seem to revel in calling people out on the most irrelevant and insignificant portions of their posts to make yourself look so amazingly intelligent, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. How about we discuss your thoughts behind this:

You never know, I suppose. Certainly I don't claim to know. And I too have done "investigations."

Tell us about some of your "investigations" and why it is that anyone should take what you have offered (which is absolutely nothing, by the way) at all seriously after such a statement?

What was it about your "investigations" that caused you to draw a similarity between them and Mooney's article?

Go on, put your brain where your mouth is, (and, I repeat) for a change!

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Tharan:

Since this is a philosophy forum, I think you are missing the most salient point. Certainly, you are missing the crux of the argument most worthy of attention in my view. What we have here is a man who is calling for a return to what I will call Newtonian physics. This was abundantly clear to me from the very first paragraph.

I understand what he is doing. It is certainly possible for him. But unfortunately for him, and for your apparent sentimentality, we have moved beyond. It is also possible to use horse drawn carriages and oil lanterns everywhere you go, as long as you ride far enough over in the road so that the the rest of the surrounding society does not need to swerve their vehicles travelling at 5 times your rate of speed. My swelling compassion for pubic safety would be my only concern in that case.

It’s kind of strange that you missed this, Tharan, and felt that the connection you make below should come as a surprise to anyone who can actually think beyond emotionalism and attachment to experimental physics:

You make me smile, Leyla. I like your judgmental stance against me ever since we disagreed on tactics in the Isreal/Lebanon thread.

So am I to understand correctly that my adherance to experimentalism is in fact equivalent to emtionalism? And further, based on your other most recent thread, this emotionalism equates to underlying religiosity?

But I a curious how you separate your own form of sentimentality, without fair reproduceability, from a "religious" mindest.

Nevertheless, I did a google on the man and I think he presents the argument most worthy of consideration well enough, which I present for consideration (or not):

Physics, with its reliance upon mathematics and other abstractions, is not a truly fundamental or strictly materialist perspective. Itâs best described as an abstractionist paradigm. This paradigm is prepared to sacrifice materialism and causality for the sake of its quantifications. Much of what is claimed to be solid scientific evidence is, in fact, merely interpretation within the conceptual framework of the abstractionist paradigm. The true scientific and materialistic nature of the Universe resides beyond the limitations of the abstractionist paradigm, and fundamental to this nature are the phenomena of attraction and repulsion.

Do you have an argument against the bolded part of his statement above?

"Much of what is claimed to be scienetific evidence" is in fact claimed to be nothing more than theory, like the theory of evolution. It has overwhelming evidence to support it. Unfortuantely, some people of sentimental (religious) persuasion dislike the results of this experimentation and begin their siren call to Return to Paradise. It is a classic human error.

But if it is the interpretation of data that you really are focused upon, then please feel free to give examples. If you would like some assistance, here is a webpage that lists some of the more famous experiments testing the premise of Special Relativity: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/R ... ments.html

Most scientists are humble and understanding enough of their own bias to still call it theory... not law, not truth, not The Way... theory. The same holds true of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. A library of literature has grown in support of the experimental data. New theories have been spun, tested, died, and the ones that survive get tested again. And again. And again.

To further this argument, I think it fair that YOU post some supporting evidence for your claim. I would like to see where science has accepted some tidbit of knowledge as "true" and yet yourself or the author has shown or can show me where it is not reproduceable. It is quite simple with no hint of religiosity, sentimentality, or slant. I personally don't care what the outcome is. It could be Newtonian, Einsteinian, or even Boratian, as long as it is reproduceable and separated as best as it can be from subjective desires and bias. Neither of you have shown me that you can do this. And yet I am supposed to close my eyes and respect your call to the "lovely past?"

I have attempted to speak rationally and with a steady emotional state in responding to you, Leyla. Can you bless me with the same effort?

Leyla Shen wrote:millipodium dribbled:

Hey Leyla. I was thinking the exact same things tharan was. I just couldn't believe something so stupid would be lauded by anyone. This is quackery. You're an idiot for thinking this an intelligent work.

Man, you are so full of shit. But, because I am such a generous person, and since you seem to revel in calling people out on the most irrelevant and insignificant portions of their posts to make yourself look so amazingly intelligent, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. How about we discuss your thoughts behind this:

You never know, I suppose. Certainly I don't claim to know. And I too have done "investigations."

Tell us about some of your "investigations" and why it is that anyone should take what you have offered (which is absolutely nothing, by the way) at all seriously after such a statement?

What was it about your "investigations" that caused you to draw a similarity between them and Mooney's article?

Go on, put your brain where your mouth is, (and, I repeat) for a change!

.

I just know that arbitrarily deciding things is not scientific.

Tharan wrote:

I understand what he is doing.

No, you don't.

You make me smile, Leyla. I like your judgmental stance against me ever since we disagreed on tactics in the Isreal/Lebanon thread.

Oh, stop being so egoistic. Are you really going to single yourself out on this score? I have had similar disagreements with both Scott, James and Kevin, and will more than likely continue to on that score, especially!

I have disagreements with you here on the basis of this subject matter and not otherwise. Of course, you will take that as you will.

Mooney: Much of what is claimed to be solid scientific evidence is, in fact, merely interpretation within the conceptual framework of the abstractionist paradigm. The true scientific and materialistic nature of the Universe resides beyond the limitations of the abstractionist paradigm, and fundamental to this nature are the phenomena of attraction and repulsion.

Tharan: "Much of what is claimed to be scienetific evidence" is in fact claimed to be nothing more than theory, like the theory of evolution. It has overwhelming evidence to support it.

Naturally, that is the "abstractionist paradigm." Physics has some gaping holes, "overwhelming evidence" notwithstanding.

Personally, from a scientific perspective, what he has written is not such a big deal except for the emotional resistance it is met with. It's still abstraction. It's still a theory--he is in pursuit of a paradigm shift for expermental purposes, after all! (Perhaps you never read that far.)

But if it is the interpretation of data that you really are focused upon, then please feel free to give examples.

I certainly will.

You know, I think you have more of an issue with the words he uses. Like, "I" and "wrong."

To further this argument, I think it fair that YOU post some supporting evidence for your claim. I would like to see where science has accepted some tidbit of knowledge as "true" and yet yourself or the author has shown or can show me where it is not reproduceable.

How about the infinitely dense universe pre the big bang--which we need in order for SR, its observations and all its experiments to have any meaning?

.

millipodium wrote:

I just know that arbitrarily deciding things is not scientific.

Fantastic.

You're a wealth of provocative philosophical thought, aren't you?

[Edit: PS--when did you arbitrarily decide you are an experimental physicist?]

.

Leyla Shen wrote:Tharan wrote:

I understand what he is doing.

No, you don't.

Yes, I do. Your turn.

You make me smile, Leyla. I like your judgmental stance against me ever since we disagreed on tactics in the Isreal/Lebanon thread.

Oh, stop being so egoistic. Are you really going to single yourself out on this score? I have had similar disagreements with both Scott, James and Kevin, and will more than likely continue to on that score, especially!

I have disagreements with you here on the basis of this subject matter and not otherwise. Of course, you will take that as you will.

Forgive me, wise woman. I do remember a time when we had a glowing, happy, friendly relationship. But that has all changed apparently. /sigh, oh well

It is not about singling myself out. It is about being categorized. And after only a single thread, no less! What a paucity of grounding! I see a repeating pattern here. But personally, I think I need a little more evidence on this idea before I begin to draw any hard or even suggestable conclusions. Perhaps that is one of our differences.

Mooney: Much of what is claimed to be solid scientific evidence is, in fact, merely interpretation within the conceptual framework of the abstractionist paradigm. The true scientific and materialistic nature of the Universe resides beyond the limitations of the abstractionist paradigm, and fundamental to this nature are the phenomena of attraction and repulsion.

Tharan: "Much of what is claimed to be scienetific evidence" is in fact claimed to be nothing more than theory, like the theory of evolution. It has overwhelming evidence to support it.

Naturally, that is the "abstractionist paradigm." Physics has some gaping holes, "overwhelming evidence" notwithstanding.

Personally, from a scientific perspective, what he has written is not such a big deal except for the emotional resistance it is met with. It's still abstraction. It's still a theory--he is in pursuit of a paradigm shift for expermental purposes, after all! (Perhaps you never read that far.)

Look at you, talking "paradigms." Based on what? Your feelings? Your desire for the universe to conform to your feelings? Who was it you were calling religious again?

My emotions have nothing to do with it. Provide sufficient evidence and I will sing Mooney's and Leya's praises to the Heavens. It is not that difficult to understand. Mooney is in the same category as all the other post-docs and academic workers without published work. It doesn't make him special or not-special. It is what it is.

But if it is the interpretation of data that you really are focused upon, then please feel free to give examples.

I certainly will.

I'll be waiting for it.

You know, I think you have more of an issue with the words he uses. Like, "I" and "wrong."

Really? What else am I thinking and feeling?

To further this argument, I think it fair that YOU post some supporting evidence for your claim. I would like to see where science has accepted some tidbit of knowledge as "true" and yet yourself or the author has shown or can show me where it is not reproduceable.

How about the infinitely dense universe pre the big bang--which we need in order for SR, its observations and all its experiments to have any meaning?

Awesome idea. The next step is to experimentally add validity to your idea of "infinity." Once that is established as theory, then we can move onto the "infinitely dense universe." Unfortunately, we will need to counter the the steep hill of data gathered over the past 60 years suggesting otherwise. But that should not be too difficult for paragons such as us. Let's get to work, shall we?

Until then, it is just another idea, like the thousands that have come before it. Even SR was just another idea until it was shown to be reproduceable and repeatable through experimentation. Einstein was not an overnight success. It took years after he first published in 1905 to be taken seriously. It is called the Scientific Method. And do you know, the idea of the Scientific Method was even established during your "Newtonian" phase of human development? And it has worked quite well actually. But like any flawed human endeavor, it can always use improvements from honest brokers.

Tharan wrote: Emission of what? Repulsion by what?

Based on this sentance:

The Universe is composed entirely of matter.

(and the rest of that paragraph) I would take him to mean that there are only particle exchange interactions, as in a Feynmann diagram.

However, he goes on to talk about fields, which, I assume, govern the particle interactions. So it seems vague as to whether the fields and emissions should be thought of as particles.

That's not necessarily a flaw, however. What you consider to be a "particle" is somewhat arbitrary in QM, too, or depends on context (e.g., photons in the double split experiment - particle or wave? And what is space, exactly?)

As everything in the Universe is subject to attraction, I decided that everything absorbs and emits as a product of its existence.

He decided? Heh

And I decided that attractions must be caused by the green energy demons that like to push things toward each other. This has the additional appeal of explaining anything that doesn't fit into a conventional theory: it's those demons, messing with you. I mean, they are demons, what do you expect?

The emission field of an object falls off in density with the distance from the object.

There is another "emission field" that fits this same criteria; gravity.

He seems to be (deliberately?) confusing gravity fields with electromagnetic fields, however:

This led me to see the Earth absorbing emission through its emission field and into its core via the poles.

I suppose that if he is intent on constructing a GUT, at some level gravity fields and electromagnetic fields are going to have to be different aspects of the same thing. (Does this mean that gravity should be greater or lesser at the poles than at the equator?)

Here, it's not clear to me if he is thinking of gravity or the magnetic field:

The Earth absorbs emission through its emission field and this is drawn into the
core via the poles. The north and south poles entail different levels of absorption
and emission, with one being emission exceeding absorption and the other being
absorption exceeding emission. The absorption of emission maintains the rotation of the core which in turn maintains the rotation of the planet and the movement of the tectonic plates. Not all the emission impacting upon the Earth is absorbed by the earth's emission field. That which is not drawn into the core impacts upon the surface of the Earth.

But later he later states explicitly:

Earth's atmosphere is retained in its position by interacting with the emission field
of the Earth. Emission fields are gravitational fields. (My emphasis.)

So gravity goes in and out at the poles...?

But then again,

Our solar system moving into and out of the influence of sources of emission
within the Milky Way galaxy, is the basis of the cyclic variation in the climate of
the Earth.

???

A favorite measurement of physics is the speed of light. This is often referred to as the speed of light in a vacuum. Light is part of the spectrum of emission and the vacuum of space is composed of emission. Emission travels through interacting with emission.

It's well known that light travels at various rates through various materials, depending on its wavelength, as demonstrated with a prism.
That's why it's specified as "in a vacuum". But, is space composed of particles ("emissions")? How would that work?

This also means that the space between the objects is composed of the emission of those objects, and is not a vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so does the wider Universe.

Well, for something nature abhors, there sure is a lot of it. Or maybe he would say there is an extremely rarified emission field (or something) in intergalactic space? Is intergalactic space made out of some kind of particle, or is it really pretty empty? He seems to have something of a problem with empty space.

This seems like an inherent flaw in his position, that the universe is entirely composed of matter. To talk about the distance between particles, you need a metric, which is introducing exactly the sort of abstract thing he wants to avoid. So I think his approach is doomed at a basic philosophical level; you can't do science without abstraction. You can only choose which abstractions you are willing to make. "Emission" is an abstraction.

Now, this sort of thing:

As Hydrogen can be 3 at [2], and Oxygen 25 at [9], this means that water is 31 at
[10]. (5)---->31<----(4) is the formula for the construction of water within the
context of the construction of a planet, and 31 would be the symmetric
representation of oceans. Within this context, 31---->56 is the symmetric
representation of the evaporation of water. 56 would be the water vapor in the
atmosphere. 25 as oxygen sees its dispersion into the atmosphere as 46. Carbon
is 16 at [7], so that (2)---->16<----(4) is the construction of Carbon and 16---->29
it's dispersion into the atmosphere. The paradigm specifies the construction of
the Earth's atmosphere

I can't make heads or tails of that. It sure looks like a bunch of numerology and mumbo-jumbo.

Physics does not explain why objects of different amounts of matter are attracted to the Earth at the same rate of acceleration.

It doesn't???

Alright, that's it. I'm going to give you all some relief and consider nothing but this man's work for the next week-ish.

But, just one thing before I take a brief leave of absence to do so.

Forgive me, wise woman. I do remember a time when we had a glowing, happy, friendly relationship. But that has all changed apparently. /sigh, oh well

It is not about singling myself out. It is about being categorized. And after only a single thread, no less! What a paucity of grounding! I see a repeating pattern here. But personally, I think I need a little more evidence on this idea before I begin to draw any hard or even suggestable conclusions. Perhaps that is one of our differences.

You mean, you haven't drawn any hard or suggestible conclusions?

No. One of our differences is that you are making this about our friendship.

Perhaps it was this sentence that, combined with a post to millipodium after it when not me but he claimed to have exactly the same thoughts as you, did it:

Let them pig out on cake, and find their slobbering gods when they are dead, I say...

I'm quite certain now that if you were not hanging on to the dregs of our disagreements on Israel/Palestine, this particular discussion would have gone quite differently, all other things remaining the same, that is--though, no, I have not tested it in a laboratory...or, wait a minute...

.

Dave, don't make me slap you, too. Though there are a few good points you make.

I will reply to your post later, too. But:

That's why it's specified as "in a vacuum". But, is space composed of particles ("emissions")? How would that work?

If you've ever read anything that James has posted, you will know that for James the theoretical emphasis is on fundamental (dual) forces.

Man, it's been like talking to a bunch of priests. Excellent!
.

Leyla Shen wrote:If you've ever read anything that James has posted, you will know that for James the theoretical emphasis is on fundamental (dual) forces.

I have to admit that I have skipped over a great deal of James' postings, but I did notice that. I was merely responding to the referenced essay here.

Perhaps James would be interested in Lawsonomy, where the emphasis is on the forces of Pressure and Suction.

Leyla Shen wrote:millipodium wrote:

I just know that arbitrarily deciding things is not scientific.

Fantastic.

You're a wealth of provocative philosophical thought, aren't you?

[Edit: PS--when did you arbitrarily decide you are an experimental physicist?]

.

Oh, so arbitrarily deciding things is scientific? is that what you're saying?