Originally posted by Chris Coles
View Post
It is also supremely arrogant, though I do not believe this was your intent. The tone of your writing makes it clear that you do not intend to be arrogant, and you do not believe you are being arrogant in your claims. But it is not your tone, or intent, that is objectionable. It is your demands themselves that embody, and express, a vast arrogance. (On the other hand, I am fully aware that my own vigorous tone in this post might well come across to those who disagree with me as arrogant. An objective reader, however, may perceive that the content of my argument is not, and I am content to trust in the intelligence and objectivity of the readership on this site to judge it fairly.)
A lack of intent or a modest tone, for example, does not change the fact that it remains arrogant to continue demanding that others should read a book which based on your own words does not meet the minimum standard for such consideration. That minimum standard is its use of the shared mathematically-based definitions and terms which provide the language for discussion in this field.
Mathematics is, simply-put, the only acceptable tool for rigorously exploring and expressing the validity or lack thereof of an idea in the field of physics.
This is because it is the only succinct and lossless way to describe the many complex logical operations and conclusions that must be made in order to have a meaningful discussion in such fields as electromagnetism (wherein the core concepts are sufficiently detailed and precise that when rendered into the comparatively imprecise language of words and text (ungrounded in mathematical definitions) they wind up being at best misunderstood, and at worst entirely wrong.
One can of course use language to discuss a new idea when both parties already know the math that lies behind all the terms being employed (as scientists and engineers do all the time, at times on this site) but the underlying assumption that enables the conversation in the first place is a prerequisite and shared understanding of the underlying math, in which all the terms being employed are defined and derived. For example, discussing whether a proposed new variable has units of energy or momentum is meaningless unless both parties fully understand and agree on the mathematical relation that "energy" and "momentum" have with one another.
Every attempt you have made to have technical conversations over the years has made abundantly clear that you do not possess this shared understanding of existing definitions, and are instead seeking to impose your own, new, definitions of terms on the conversation.
There is never an obligation for any reader to follow an author, but this is especially true when the author imposes excessive and unnecessary barriers to comprehension by failing to learn and use the standard language for a given discussion.
There's a reason that Maxwell's equations are the beginning point of any textbook on the subject of E&M. Without them, one simply does not have sufficiently precise nomenclature and definitions to even conduct the rest of the discussion.
Trying to have a conversation about a topic in physics without these mutually understood, mathematically-expressed definitions and piecewise comprehensible mathematical derivations in place first is like having a conversation with a babbling baby. It tries to converse, it believes it is expressing its ideas, and it believes that it is speaking a language that is just as intelligible as the one it is hearing, but without prior agreed-upon meanings mutually shared with its listener, it can neither communicate its own thoughts, nor comprehend those of others, nor develop complex thoughts that require the exchange of thoughts with other individuals.
So the math isn't something that can come after an idea has been shared, and developed later, after the idea is shared. It must be understood first -- in order for the idea to be expressed and discussed at all. It provides the shared definitions and mutually-understood relations for the words used in the conversation to have meanings that are understood and agreed on by all participants. Saying that others should read your book, and understand and use your own new definitions, is like the baby asking for every person it interacts with to treat it's babble-language as a foreign language, study it for hours upon hours, try to comprehend it in spite of its inconsistency with all existing languages, and then discuss ideas using that. It is simply not a reasonable request, and even if it were accommodated, it would prove nearly useless for discussing ideas. For one thing, in this case, it's been tried, and over time substituted with math. With virtually no exceptions, the physics community has moved away from using pure textual reasoning you insist upon sticking with, and for very good reasons:
Text is sufficiently subject to interpretation, and words have sufficiently many meanings, that one cannot analyze an extended logical sequence of, say, a thousand steps, using only these (english-language) tools to express the logic. It is quite straightforward, however, to do the same in unambiguous mathematical language, since every term, concept, and relationship has been precisely defined, and each step builds on known and finite axioms. The result is that in mathematics -- and ONLY in mathematics -- adding additional complexity of reasoning does not add additional error. A computation of a thousand steps can be conducted by a computer (or a skilled mathematician) with no errors at all. And if there is an error for some reason, another computer (either person or machine) can readily go through the steps as well and find it. By comparison, a logical treatise in text of that length (1000 consecutive logical inferences to reach a conclusion) and complexity simply does not even exist, and it would be unintelligible to read if it did, since one would need to hold all prior pertinent definitions and conclusions in one's mind at the same time to read each consecutive operation.
Thus, when one uses only textual language as a tool for reasoning, additional complexity DOES introduce additional error, as well as an increase in the difficulty of understanding. That is why, however one chooses to express a given idea in physics - using english or math - the only correct way to actually conduct the comparison of the validity of ideas -- is using math.
You are putting forward an idea, and asking it to be compared for validity. To demand that it be evaluated in a textual argument is simply not going to be heeded by anyone who understands how to reason using physics. It is as though a person called on a carpenter to do a repair, but insists when they arrive that the carpenter use a screwdriver to drive a nail into a board, because the customer only knows of the existence of screwdrivers, and not hammers. Any skilled carpenter is going to look at the situation, and reach for a hammer to drive the nail. It's the correct tool for the job. Just because the customer don't understand that fact, doesn't make it less true.
Furthermore, for any idea to pass muster, it must be compared with all prior observed data. Simply put, the era where the existing body of knowledge in this field could be completely and correctly contained and considered using mere text, even 5 million pages of it, has simply passed many decades ago. If one relies on such vague things as textual arguments to obtain one's understanding of the current knowledge in this field, that will likely be only the first of many major sources of error.
For the above reasons (among others) we translate concepts of physics into mathematical terms in order to discuss them (and as a prerequisite of said discussion), as follows:
If an idea, expressed mathematically, results in an obvious fallacy like 1=2, then it can quickly be seen as objectively false. No further time need be wasted evaluating it (or considering the possibility that it is simply an "apparent" discrepancy that arises from a misunderstanding of definitions, or similar vague handwaving).
But if a translation of an idea into mathematics results in a self-consistent predictive expression, that can also be shown to be consistent with the existing body of observed data (also expressed for concision in mathematical terms) then (and only then) does there exist the possibility that the new idea might be true, at which point (and ONLY after which point) it becomes worthy of consideration in any peer-review process. (If an author is able to credibly make that claim, that is also the point at which a publication might be worth spending more than a minute or two on.)
That isn't some arbitrary, lofty, or arrogant assessment on the part of me, or some vague "scientific conspiracy" on the part of physicists worldwide. It is also not an impossibly high barrier of access (literally thousands of papers are published daily, all far surpassing that low standard). It is, however, an inevitable requirement that arises from the fact that it just takes an extraordinarily large amount of time to find the source of errors in any new theory, even when it IS expressed in mathematical terms. Demanding that others spend vast quantities of time reading 500 pages, without bothering to oneself sufficiently prepare the theory for such review by first condensing it into convenient and easily-understood mathematical expressions, is extraordinarily arrogant. You're asking more of others than you yourself are willing to do, and this on behalf of your own theory!
Again, there are thousands of new ideas being published on a daily basis. It is always and everywhere the author's responsibility to justify being read, not the reader's responsibility to give hours of time to each one -- a physical impossibility in any event.
Creating a tome of 500 pages does NOT as you seem to imagine, create more value. A clearly expressed theory is one that is concise. (Again, math is really helpful here, it's hard to be more concise than a few key equations.) All additional length does is increase the expectations for the content held in the writing. Instead of spending an hour, you want me to spend 10, or 100 times as long? Then there had better be 10, or 100 times as worthwhile stuff inside, for it to be worth anyone's time. A lack of concise writing, however, usually indicates a lack of clarity in thought as well, though, which is why the most prestigious journals limit publications to a page or two. (There are long-for journals as well, that permit lots of space, for those who prefer that. Interestingly enough, even quite complex ideas usually don't require them, when they are communicated using appropriate mathematical expressions.)
Furthermore, you're also asking the reader to parse your words to make sense of your re-definition of basic terms that are confusingly named, in direct opposition to existing definitions of those same words. ("Proton" and "field" already have perfectly good definitions, which you seem perfectly content to re-define at will, without clearly stating this to the reader, and therefore implicitly expecting them to keep up with, and accept, your own shifted definitions because you can't be bothered to learn existing ones!)
The bottom line is that when a theory ISN'T clearly stated in mutually-agreed-upon mathematics, the task of finding possible sources of error can become a full lifetime's worth of work for somebody else. Demanding that others put such extensive effort into studying your "theory" when you can't even be bothered to learn a little basic math yourself on behalf of the effort, is the height of arrogance. It necessarily implies that even a couple of years on your part (enough to learn multivariable calculus) is worth more than a far greater span of someone else's time. How dare you treat others with such contempt!?
In the time that I've seen you pushing your "theory" on this website (at least several years now) you could easily have learned all the math you needed to express it sufficiently clearly. Instead, all you've done is repeatedly insist that OTHERS take the time to understand your incredibly vague, imprecise, and consequently necessarily imprecise thinking, in words. In a field that is intrinsically detailed and specific, there simply is no reasonable expectation on the part of any practitioner that such vague language is even capable of containing a correct theory. From a scientific standpoint, it is analogous to the aforementioned babbling of a baby.
Finally, by arrogantly asserting that your theories "do not relate to" mathematics, you are implicitly stating (probably without even realizing it!) that you are claiming that they defy both proof and disproof, and thus you force us to classify them as intrinsically without scientific value. (Science being devoted to the evaluation of falsifiable ideas.)
I should point out that the above criticism of your textual approach is very different from the reasoned assessment of most scientific books for the layman. These take a theory which has already been demonstrated to be mathematically valid, and describe it using words meant for a lay audience (which scientists do with some frequency). In that case the goal is merely to communicate an idea which has previously been demonstrated to have both meaning and value. Serious publishers only print such books after the ideas have first been exposed to peer-review in mathematical form. Do not confuse such printings with your own self-published, non-peer-reviewed, work. Newton worked out the math, and THEN published his Principia (which, by the way, still contained plenty of math). He didn't do it in the reverse order, and for one simple reason: He understood and accepted as necessary the paradigm that no scientific idea is even worthy of consideration until it has first been expressed clearly, by which is meant, in mathematics.
So the justification for a physics theory does not and cannot lie in words, but must be presented in mathematics, to make the demand for consideration a reasonable one. Looking for validation without mathematics can justify only the most primitive, obvious, and uncontroversial of theories. Since you have already made bold claims about how your model does not merely extend, but actually is intended to replace, existing understanding, you have already taken yourself out of this category.
Controversy exists. Now is the time to show the math.
If the proposer can't show the math, the only reasonable assumption a reader can make is that the proposer is so far from knowing what they are talking about that they aren't even capable of comprehending their own ignorance.
The detailed application of E&M theory that would distinguish any new theory from existing theory REQUIRES advanced mathematics, and cannot be fully understood absent that mathematics. Without, for example, a thorough command of Fourier transforms, one would not be able to express or discuss certain properties of wave interference that arise in theory, and by being observed in the world, validate that theory. This means that ANY purely textual understanding, divorced from underlying math, will in general be wildly inaccurate. Thus, a person who possesses insufficient understanding to express their ideas mathematically cannot possibly claim to be able to compare the validity of their theory with existing theory, much less justify a claim to be improving upon existing theory. They would literally lack the ability to even know of the existence of the tests that would prove their theory wrong, and thus could not possibly have given it enough scrutiny to make it worth reading.
In other words, if you CAN'T show the math, then the reader knows (a priori) that your theory has been insufficiently developed to be worth spending time on. It can't have been tested sufficiently thoroughly, since the tests themselves are mathematically intensive.
If the proposer can, but won't, show the math, the only reasonable assumption is that they know that their theory is inconsistent with existing data. (...And are unwilling to provide the falsifying evidence, presumably because they derive some measure of attention from pretending to know what they're talking about, and want to enjoy that attention without risk of actual disproof).
The above is not an unfair or unreasonable standard for consideration!
It is the standard that all current theories have had to surpass in order to be considered at all, and for that reason it is the minimum reasonable standard that any new theory must reach in order to replace them. To demand otherwise is to demand that a less-justified theory should replace a more-justified one! This too, is a ridiculous and arrogant demand, and invites fully-justified mockery of the claimant.
That's simply not how science works. The way one theory replaces another is not by providing a better story (narrative strength should have no sway in science). Providing more, and more precise, evidence that it mathematically predicts experimental results (with mathematically expressed improvement in precision) is the only reasonable expectation. But so far, all that you've even claimed to have is a word-story, which you incorrectly tout as being equally worthy for consideration as a mathematically developed theory. It isn't. And rightly so.
The history of science is clear: Stories do not replace mathematically predictive theories. Mathematically predictive theories replace stories. We've come a long way since Archimedes and Ptolemy. The errors in their textual thinking have been shown -- using mathematics. And yet, the new hypothesis demands that we reason using their primitive mode of thinking, which has been supplanted everywhere it has been examined, by more rigorous study? And to trust it, over and above those ideas which have not only well-developed mathematical framework, but also vast amounts of experimental evidence? Sorry, but not until I see a sign that there's some actual evidence. Everything posted here to date has merely been evidence that the idea has no support at all.
So show the math, or shut up about this garbage already! And yes, until the math has been shown, that remains the correct classification for it:
All ideas claiming to be scientific advances are properly and necessarily considered to be wrong until demonstrated to be otherwise. There is also no "innocent until proven guilty" in evaluating scientific claims. There is no "right to be heard", or "right to a trial". Ideas have to compete on their merits for attention, and I for one have yet to see even the slightest iota of merit in even one of your posts on this subject, and I have read a great many more than I have cared to. Finally, there exists no obligation for anyone to spend time reading 500 pages that don't even claim to contain the minimum mathematical rigor to even be considered for publication in the field. Please stop acting offended when people don't accept having that made-up obligation thrust on them.
The burden of proof ALWAYS and CORRECTLY lies on the person proposing the new idea.
Enough of the bloviating word-salad. It's time to put up, or shut up.
Show the math.
Until you do, there's no justification at all for complaining when others provide well-deserved mockery. Indeed, your incredibly great arrogance, and contempt for the value of others' time, demands exactly that response, and no other.
.
Leave a comment: