> I've been remaining quiet with respect to the 'Big Bang' thread, for
> reasons I explain more fully below. However, the use of my name in vain by
> Mr. Hollick has induced me to write this message.
Hello, Carl,
8 November 1997
Thanks for responding.
My reference was to Feynman pere, not to Feynman fils. >:-} I had
wondered if you were related, but it seemed unfair to ask you "Are
you Richard Feynman's son?' -- I know that David Friedman just
_hates_ being referred to as 'Son-of-Milton' -- and I'd be more
interested in your own contributions to science etc. However, I do
thank you for your interesting response, which allows me to explain
a few things, and to ask you a few questions.
I have many of your father's books. I revere his work, and would
have loved to meet him personally, not just through his work. We
both met at at least one person he mentions -- Werner Erhard, of
Erhard Seminars Training ('est').
Just like your father, I take nothing for granted, and I always
think things out for myself. I also propound a refreshing and
elegantly simple way of looking at nature's ways, based precisely on
Werner Heisenberg's proposition that: "Classical Mechanics is
everywhere exactly 'right', wherever its concepts can be applied."
Feynman Sr. (as well as his colleague John Wheeler) is well-known as
having studied the work of Walter Ritz [1908] very intensively. Ritz
proposed a quantized particle theory of light, working within a
Galilean framework, with 'particles fictives' (functionally
_identical_ to 'virtual photons') acting as electromagnetic force
carriers. Read Paul Forman of the Smithsonian, writing on Ritz and
his work in the Scribners volumes of Scientific Biography.
Yet your father never seemed to _acknowledge Ritz's priority_ in his
writings. To be sure, QED is less complete than Ritz's theory (no
treatment of gravity); and is at variance with it on a few points.
But the similarities between Ritz and QED are _overwhelming_. In
one way, this delights me, since it neatly torpedoes most of the
'difficult' objections to the ballistic theory of light ('light
cannot be particles; light cannot travel at more and less than 'c').
>>>QED "resolves" this wave/particle duality by saying that light is
made of particles (as Newton originally thought)... <<< -- Richard
Feynman, "Photons: Particles of Light", QED [1985], Ch. 2.
To which I add: "we can calculate the actual positions of photons,
predictively and retrodictively, with increasing precision."
I do this by proposing that photons _ARE_ matter -- they're composed
of positrinos (like positrons but many orders of magnitude smaller);
and electrinos (like electrons, but many orders of magnitude
smaller). I sacrifice 'virtual photons' and 'particles fictives' in
favour of Faradayan aetherless electric, magnetic and gravitational
forces which are intrinsic properties of matter. See William Koller
Berkson's incomparable work, "Fields of Force" (RKP [1974] ).
Feynman Sr.'s inexplicable omission of Walter Ritz and R.A. Waldron
is regrettable. In another way, it pisses me off, since [A] Ritz
had priority; and [B] the omission of his name and references means
that successive scientists working in this subject-area have to
re-create the ballistic theory all over again, and work through the
supposedly 'refuting' objections to it, all of which fall over, and
wave their weedy little legs pathetically in the air.
Just read ace mathematician R.A. Waldron's brilliant study, "The
Wave and Ballistic Theories of Light -- A Critical Review"
(Frederick Muller, [1977] ).
>:-}
> I can assure you that neither of us understands your cockamamie
> renunciation of twenetieth-century physics. Well, my father might
> understand it, but he certainly doesn't agree with it.
I have easily proved you wrong on both counts regarding Feynman
Sr.'s position. He concedes my key assertions explicitly!
He clearly either hadn't _read_ Popper on propensities (a bit
unlikely, that, but still possible); or he didn't understand Popper
(inconceivable). You'll have to speak for yopurself on both these
questions.
He might well have _disagreed with Popper, of course -- that's his
right! As Sir Karl would be the first to agree... >:-}
Then you -- inexplicably? -- stray into 'flame-bait' territory...
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
> I'm not going to bother transcribing the rest of the paragraph. That's
> because I am assuming that (a) the vast majority of people on this list
> do not agree with you...
As my TOP GUN air combat fighter pilot chum inscribed in his cockpit:
"NEVER ASSUME --- *** C H E C K ! ! ! ***"
Anyway, since when did science decide questions by head-counting? Or
bean-counting? "Compare and evaluate the Research Programmes." Or
are you into some kind of Kuhnian daftness, where science is a matter
of mob psychology rather than rational theoretical progress? >:-}
> (b) you will never change your mind, no matter how hard anyone tries.
> On what grounds do I assume (b)? I don't know you personally, but I've
> seen the work of lots of people who have, like you, come up with a
> complete reconstruction of physics according to radical new principles.
Except that [i] I actually _do_ change my mind quite readily, on a
'balance-sheet' evaluation of rival theories; although -- like your
father -- I value tenacity and original thinking; and [ii] my
'restructuring' is in fact a continuation and extension of the
Euclid-Newton-Classical-Mechanics _mainline_, in the long tradition
of matter/forces/empty-space metaphysics.
Only the building-blocks of matter -- positrinos and and electrinos
--are all that 'new' (and they're owed to R.A. Waldron, Professor of
Mathematics, Ulster Polytechnic, 'The Spinning Photon', Speculations
in Science and Technology, Elsevier [1981]).
> My father would get letters and phone calls from them periodically, and
> occasional unwelcome visits.
Has it ever occurred to you that physics heretics (among whom your
your father is most certainly numbered!) are often a bit odd? Why
would any 'normal' person bother with developing new theories? So
much easier to conform, and to use the pre-existing smelly little
orthodoxies...
> Like you, they don't like Einstein.
Wrong!!! I _do_ like Einstein as a personality and as a writer
(although I do think he was a bit of a charlatan: still, paid
physics jobs were hard to come by, back then). Sure, I think some
his work is wrong (so did he).
And I do think that (along with Ernst Mach and many others) he
helped to attack the Kantian foundations of Western civilization
(probably quite deliberately, as he saw them as an obstacle to the
'scientific socialist' world order which many scientists 'bought
into' back then, with -- predictedly -- disastrous consequences).
> Like you, they don't know much mathematics
Oh, c'mon! You ever heard of Adam-Smithian division of labour? If
I want a bean-counter, I _hire_ one. Anyway, what the hell are
computers for? >:-}
> but they do erect complex systems of important-sounding concepts. Like
> you, they argue indefatigably and according to rules unlike those used
> by ordinary physicists, or, indeed, ordinary rational people.
A cheap attempted smear job, Carl. Utterly unworthy of you...
I don't want to be an 'ordinary physicist.' Neither did your
father. We're _trail-blazers_.
You're probavbly motivated by my questioning your father's claims to
priority. Right or wrong? Answer, please.
> Like you, they feel oppressed, abused and neglected by the world at
> large.
Another cheap shot. I experience Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, as
a direct result of combat in the Cold War and the fight for
individual rights. Nothing to do with my work in physics. Don't
hand me your psychologistic crap, Carl. Address the _critical
issues_.
> And it is generally impossible to change their mind, which certainly
> seems true of you so far.
Your father 'followed his star' with great intelligence and
determination, just as I follow mine. We couldn't do what we do
without that tenacity and individuality. "Dare yo use your own
intelligence! This is the maxim of the Enlightenment!" -- Immanuel
Kant, 'Was ist Aufklarung?'
> My father was careful to distinguish such people from genuine seekers
> after knowledge; to the latter, he would provide careful replies to
> their letters, and would spend considerable time on the phone with
> them. To the former, he would not reply, having learned from experience
> that any attempt at correspondence generally results in an interminable
> series of screeds of steadily increasing vituperation.
Let us all into the secret of the touchstone he used to distinguish
between the former and the latter. I'm fairly sure I'd have gotten
on with your father famously well, going by his writings (he often
thinks a lot like me).
> I have followed this principle on this list, and hence have not replied
> to any of your posts since you joined the list, no matter how obviously
> fallacious.
Carl: feel free to be rude. Or feel free to address the issues. Or
not. That's what we're fighting for, in my business anyway.
> You are free to accuse me of closed-mindedness, rudeness, stupidity, or
> adherence to any number of unsound philosophical practices. I doubt I
> will comment further on this matter.
I don't have to accuse you of _anything_. You're convicting
yourself, by your own words. Your present attitude would have been
regarded with hilarity by your father -- I can almost hear his hoots
of derision right now! >:-} "Do some original work..."
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
Oh, and he was wrong on Challenger, too.
[ Read my -- true -- OMAC/Omega SpeedMaster ST-51 'Challenger'
story? The astronauts often go out to the launch-pad early in the
morning, and _talk_ with the ships who sing. Are we _all_ 'crazy',
perhaps? >:-} ].
Carl, here's the deal:
Go rent Richard C. Sarafian's inspired movie "Vanishing Point" [1971].
Carefully watch the fate of another immortally beautiful white
Challenger, '... quick beyond all dreams of speed ...'
If yop're not moved and illuminated, just say, and I'll refund the
video rental price. In solid gold. I can't bring Challenger and
her crew back. John Denver, who was selected to fly on the final
mission, was 'bounced' in favour of Christa McAuliffe, for expressly
political reasons -- Reagan's White House intervened. John Denver
said that the disaster would not have occurred if he'd been on board
that day. He was absolutely right, of course.
"Fasten your safety belt. You've never had a trip like this before."
[ FX: <implacably>: "Now just watch..." ]
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
/ /\ \
--*--<Tony>--*--
Tony Hollick, LightSmith
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/la-agora (LA-Agora Conference)
http://www.agora.demon.co.uk (Agora Home Page, Rainbow Bridge Foundation)
http://www.nwb.net/nwc (NorthWest Coalition Against Malicious Harrassment)
PS: I like you, Carl! I love it here!! Extropia is 'home'!!!
(BTW: If he agreed with Einstein on how velocities add, he could
never have asserted that photons can travel faster and slower than
'c' , _which he most certainly has_. In print! >:-} ).
------------------- * * * * * ---------------
| Anduril@CIX.compulink.co.uk * http://www.agora.demon.co.uk |
- <*> --------------------------* * * *-------------------------- <*> -
| Rainbow Bridge Foundation * * * Centre for Liberal Studies |
- <*> --------------------------* * * *-------------------------- <*> -
| 4 Grayling House, Canford Rd: * Bristol BS9 3NU Tel: 9098918 |
"Freedom means doing whatever you damn well please." -- Barry Goldwater
------------------- * * * * * ---------------