🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep27.172211.1391@cnsvax.uwec.edu>, mcelwre@cnsvax.uwec.edu writes...
> 
>                          LARSONIAN "Reciprocal System"

I have seen this stuff posted quite a few times over the past year, but 
have not really gotten involved in the discussion.  But after reading this
fellow's post closely this morning, I have a few comments for him.  
Fundamentally, I must point out, that *if*, Mr. McElwaine, you really
do believe Larson's physics, then you are going about promoting him in 
entirely the wrong way.  For example, the the very first paragraph, you
attack your audience as a bunch of liers and cheats:

>               Orthodox physicists, astronomers, and astrophysicists 
>          CLAIM to be looking for a "Unified Field Theory" in which all 
>          of the forces of the universe can be explained with a single 
>          set of laws or equations.  But they have been systematically 
>          IGNORING or SUPPRESSING an excellent one for 30 years! 

Very bad show.  You just lost 90% of your audience.

Later, on:

>               All of this is described in good detail, with-OUT fancy 
>          complex mathematics, in his books. 

Oops.  Physics without math is meaningless philosophy.  This is a serious
blow against Larson, not a credit to his name.  How are we to calculate
the predictions of his theory in new circumstances, if he does not present
the mathematical workings of his model?

>               "NOTHING BUT MOTION" (1979) 
>                    [A $9.50 SUBSTITUTE for the $8.3 BILLION "Super 
>                                                            Collider".] 

Sigh...  Physicists do not read books to learn how the world works.  Aristotle
survived as the unassailable last word on the nature of the physical world
for centuries because of the attitude you display above.  Surely, not even
Larson himself could have claimed to have had all the answers we would 
ever need about the way the world works.  I have not read his work.  If he
indeed said such things, it's time for you to give him up.  He's sure to be
wrong.

>               Larson's lack of a fancy "PH.D." degree might be one 
>          reason that orthodox physicists are ignoring him, but it is 
>          NOT A VALID REASON.  Sometimes it takes a relative outsider 
>          to CLEARLY SEE THE FOREST THROUGH THE TREES.  At the same 
>          time, it is clear from his books that he also knew ORTHODOX 
>          physics and astronomy as well as ANY physicist or astronomer, 
>          well enough to point out all their CONTRADICTIONS, AD HOC 
>          ASSUMPTIONS, PRINCIPLES OF IMPOTENCE, IN-CONSISTENCIES, ETC.. 

I do not have a Ph.D. (Yet!) I have never been ignored by any "orthodox
physicist."  (How does an orthodox physicist behave?  Does he quote Jackson
chapter and verse?  Does he bow towards Batavia?  Chant from the Particle
Data book?)

I find "Principles of Impotence" to be a phrase which provides a certain
insight into the psyche of Mr. Larson.  I take it to be some kind of
political attack upon quantum mechanics.
>     
>               Larson did NOT have the funds, etc. to experimentally 
>          test his Theory.  And it was NOT necessary for him to do so.  
>          He simply compared the various parts of his Theory with OTHER 
>          researchers' experimental and observational data.  And in 
>          many cases, HIS explanation FIT BETTER. 

Things are getting worser and worser.  Postdicting old experiments, even if
he indeed did so, is only a minimum requirement for any model.  It is 
necessary but far from sufficient.  Nevertheless, this is at least a testable
claim.  Perhaps you can provide a clear example of such a case?

>               A SELF-CONSISTENT Theory is MUCH MORE than the ORTHODOX 
>          physicists and astronomers have!  They CLAIM to be looking 

If by self-consistent, you mean that the theory make one and only one
well-defined prediction for any observable, which then turns out to 
match the experimental evidence, then modern physics is certainly 
self-consistent.

>               "Modern physics" does NOT explain the physical universe 
>          so well.  Some parts of some of Larson's books are FULL of 
>          quotations of leading orthodox physicists and astronomers who 
>          agree.  

Appeals to authority are the last refuge of the scoundrel.  Give it up.
I don't care what anyone has to say about physics.  Einstein, Heisenberg,
Planck,etc., were great physicists.  But I do not care what they thought
about their work, except perhaps out of historical curiosity.  I am perfectly 
capable of judging these things for myself.

>	   And remember that "epicycles", "crystal spheres", 
>          "geocentricity", "flat earth theory", etc., ALSO once SEEMED 
>          to explain it well, but were later proved CONCEPTUALLY WRONG. 

Reference to "physics" prior to the Seventeenth Century are pretty much
a waste of time.  How about some modern examples of accepted pictures
which failed as badly as crystal spheres?

>               I am AGAINST contruction of the "Superconducting Super 
>          Collider", in Texas or anywhere else.  It would be a GROSS 
>          WASTE of money, and contribute almost NOTHING of "scientific" 
>          value. 

Are you Rustam Roy in disguise?

>               A larger and more expensive collider will ONLY create a 
>          few more elements of anti-matter that the physicists have not 
>          seen there before, and the physicists will be EVEN MORE 
>          CONFUSED THAN THEY ARE NOW! 

So?  I could not hope for more?  The greatest periods of scientific 
growth have also been times of confusion and disagreement.  The best
possible outcome of SSC research, IMHO, would be to provide evidence
so puzzling that we would all be very confused.  Perhaps that would
mark a return to the great days of the 50's and 60's when we were 
overwhelmed with data we did not understand and which provided fantastic
opportunity for progress.
>          
>               Naming the "Super Collider" after Ronald Reagon, as 
>          proposed, is TOTALLY ABSURD!  If it is built, it should be 
>          named after a leading particle PHYSICIST. 

A statement I can agree with!!! There is little doubt that the SSC should
have been the Richard Feynman Center for Particle Physics.  It is a tragedy
of our political system that we honor politicians more than scientists
and other scholars because of the political power which they wield.

>               It contains FINAL SOLUTIONS to most all Astrophysical 
>          mysteries, including the FORMATION of galaxies, binary and 
>          multiple star systems, and solar systems, the TRUE ORIGIN of 
>          the "3-degree" background radiation, cosmic rays, and gamma-
>          ray bursts, and the TRUE NATURE of quasars, pulsars, white 
>          dwarfs, exploding galaxies, etc.. 

Final Solutions have never been held in high repute by physicists of 
any calibre.  The phrase also contains nasty political connotations.
Change it.

The important point is - As a result of your apparent lack of experience
actually practicing the science of physics, you are a poor advocate for 
your cause.  You need to seriously reexamine your notions of how scientific
progress is created, how the scientific community operates, and the
motivations of the people involved.

I have intentionally avoided commenting upon the scientific content of 
your post.  I'm sure that the readership of sci.physics is perfectly
capable of judging those things for themselves.

-Scott

--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver