Re: Crap Physics

Tony Hollick (
Thu, 4 Jun 98 18:02 BST-1

Damien Broderick wrote:

>Yes, but it's hard not to feel some deep-in-the-bone sympathy with his
>qualms about paradoxa in QT and Relativity. This might mean nothing more
>profound than a mismatch between human-scale expectations, perhaps
>pre-wired by evolution, and the real substrate of the universe, or it might
>be a clue to something truly radical awaiting physics.

Thank you, Damien.

What I find so hard to explain is why anyone should have problems
with what is essentially a profoundly _uncomplicated_ physics:

[1] Classical Mechanics (the foundation of physics):

[2] Faradayan Electric and Magnetic and Gravitational Forces
propagated with time delays (as Leigh Page showed [1912] and
[1914] these reduce to Maxwell's equations relative to the
force-emitting bodies).

[3] A Ballistic Theory of Light whereby photons-with-mass are
emitted at 'c' relative to the emitting body.

My basic claim is that -- if you do a little bit of work -- you can
deal with any physics problem above the nuclear scale (we're working
on extending it into the nuclear realm). Everything becomes so much
more straight-forward, and -- on a balance-sheet basis -- the gains
vastly exceed the losses. In addition, there are are no 'six
impossible things before breakfast' to believe.

The whole thing can be laid out on a single sheet of A4 paper.

And it can be easily simulated on a computer. The program does not
break down with paradoxes and contradictions. It's my guess we have
this program directly encoded into our brain at a tacit level.

There's a wonderful sense of clarity and intellectual power.

And there's a _political_ edge to all this -- particle theories are
favoured by individualists, whilst wave theories are preferred by
collectivists (Cf: Danah Zohar, 'The Quantum Self.').