Re: “By your lack of response, I assume that you’ve put me in the ‘crazy person’ category.
Obviously you have mistaken me for an academic. I like to make a distinction beween ‘academic’ and ’scholar.’ Academics tend to critique everything from their own paradigm of knowledge, rather than understand.
Scholars pursue understanding, even if it overthrows an accepted paradigm.
To understand your theory of emissions would take a long more time than you have given me. I have been working on the seventeenth century philosopher, Baruch Spinoza, for over ten years and I am just beginning to understand his theory of knowledge.
Seth Lloyd (Programming the Universe) says that “…the more original and imaginative the paper that I submit, the more quickly and harshly it is rejected.” (p3). This is in a chapter that was left out of his book, because it was too technical. This is all online, Chp. 7, Director’s Cut: It From Quibit).
Since you appear to be rejecting most of establishment physics, you must expect ‘harsh rejection’ and being put in a ‘crazy person’ category. Do not expect otherwise. But also, DON’T GIVE UP!’
Spinoza divided knowledge into (1) opinion (2) true belief or reason and (3) science. Most people operate by just opinion, including many academics. True belief is just a thing of reason that is a stepping stone to understanding. Science, for Spinoza is what the ancient Greeks called, ‘demonstration,’ or reason living inside of us, not external observation.
Spinoza called this phenomena, ‘intuition’ but, as Wittgenstein says, this word is an ‘unnecessary shuffle.’ I believe what Spinoza meant by science is best represented by Seth Lloyd and Antonio Damasio’s works. Lloyd says: “…entanglement is responsible for the generation of information in the universe (Programming, p. 119). Damasio describes ‘feelings’ as a superposition of body and cognition. (Descartes Error pp. 143-147).
Understanding is the logic of the universe that lives within our ability to think and act.
I do not understand your work yet but I am willing to pursue your idea of paradigm. I do however, wish you would do more showing why establishment physics is wrong than just to state that it is.
Also, as a philosopher strongly influenced by Spinoza’s and Wittgenstein’s critique of abstract thinking, I find your very abstract critique of the ‘abstractionist paradigm’ as Wittgenstein would say, ‘bewitching.’ This is not a critique of your ideas but of your methods of presenting them.
Spinoza said, “Some things are in our intellect and not in Nature; so these are only our own work and they help us to understand things distinctly. Among these, we include all relations which have reference to different things. Thse we call ‘beings of reason.’ (Collected works, Edward Curley trans. Vol 1, p. 92.
As you can see, I am a philosopher with a strong interest in science but not a physicist. My critique is only about being clear and distinct in your presentation, not a critique of content.
Continue your work.
Dick DeShaw
<script type=”text/javascript”>
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-17496559-2']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement(’script’); ga.type = ‘text/javascript’; ga.async = true;
ga.src = (’https:’ == document.location.protocol ? ‘https://ssl’ : ‘http://www’) + ‘.google-analytics.com/ga.js’;
var s = document.getElementsByTagName(’script’)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>