🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 24, 11:55 pm, maxwell <s...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> On Dec 10 2009, 1:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
......
>>> These types of mediumless fields remind me of the grin of the Cheshire
>>> Cat.
>>> For the rest of us: no cat, no grin.
>
>> Well, the "rest of us" is a rather small but cranky minority,
>> apparently, who have difficulty when nature resists pigeonholing.
>> Space that isn't devoid of properties, wave phenomena outside of
>> media, objects that are neither particles nor waves, fields that
>> aren't made of stuff, properties of objects that don't have a unique
>> and frame-independent value, causality that doesn't require strict and
>> time-ordered determinism -- all of these are threats to favorite
>> comfort toys and cuddle bears that are difficult to let go of, even
>> when it becomes plain that nature is not as simple as we thought in
>> our cuddle-bear days.
>
>> PD
>
> You have that rare ability, shared by many of today's theoretical
> physicists, to talk about logically self-contradictory concepts and
> imagine that these contradictions actually form the basis of reality.
> It is no surprise that modern theoretical physics is lost in
> "Wonderland"?
> Space = nothing AND has properties;
> waves = variations in a medium AND in empty space;
> fields = variation in a component of reality AND not made of anything;
> object properties = invariant defining characteristics
> AND values varying by viewpoint;
> causality = invariant determinism across time AND anything goes.
>
> No, Mr Draper, it is you who are still stuck in the nursery - the
> childlike world where any contradiction is allowed and where logical
> consistency is not required.
> Time to grow up and recognize that when your ideas are so muddled and
> contradictory, you have not created a theory of the world (physics)
> but a self-indulgent, fools paradise, funded by gullible
> governments.

Well said 'maxwell', I agree with you.
Yes, today's theoretical physicists do talk about logically self-
contradictory concepts. Perhaps in the grand maze of the unknown,
theoretical physicists have somewhere missed the right track and are
now approaching a dead end. They have been steadily indoctrinated into
believing that due to the  complexity of physical reality, they can
not demand logical consistency in physical concepts and can not even
demand mental visualization of basic phenomena in quantum mechanical
world. In this regard let me quote from "The Farce of Physics" by
Bryan G. Wallace.

"In 1963, P. A. M. Dirac, in his paper, `The evolution of the
physicist's picture of nature', [65] writes: `one can make a safe
guess that uncertainty relations in their present form will not
survive in the physics of the future'. André Mercier reports [121] a
conversation with Werner Heisenberg, in which Heisenberg argued `that
even major modifications of present physical theories would not
transform them into the desired new theory, as quite different and
novel ideas are required. Secondly, the impact of quantum theory and
relativity theory on the minds of those scholars who helped found them
during the first half of our century is conceivably such that they are
imprisoned by these theories and thus cannot help but reason
conformably, that is, in terms of traditional concepts; whereas the
need is for a whole revolution of thought, which can only be carried
through by nonconformists.'..."

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info