středa 1. dubna 2009

Would Galileo pass peer review today?

The case of Galileo Galilei, who was condemned for promotion of heliocentric model is usually interpreted by propaganda of mainstream science as a manifestation of superiority of so called scientific method over reactionary stance of Holy Church up to level, every notion of Galileo in different context is considered a direct manifestation of crackpotism. But under more thorough view we can identify many common points between reactionary stance of Holy Church and approach, which proponents of mainstream science are applying against promoters of Aether concept:
  1. Heliocentrism was as an ancient Greek model by the same way, like Aether concept, so called plenum. It was thrown away later mostly from ideological reasons in both cases.
  2. Holy Church was dominant meritocratic organization in Galileo era by the same way, like mainstream science today. Quantity criterion plays a role in AWT models of sociology, because majority mostly adheres to more conservative stance, then isolated souls due at the beginning of social cycle due the mutual compensation of progressive ideas (mutations) inside of larger groups.
  3. Mr. Galileo has used an intuitive logical arguments without formal math to support heliocentric model (i.e. the order of Venus phases, orientation of lunar craters shadows, etc.), but they were ignored by his opponents on behalf of formal models by the same way, like mainstream science ignores logical arguments of Aether proponents on behalf of formal models - just because of their lack of formal math.
  4. From the above reasons, Galileo was considered a controversial - if not naive - crackpot by the rest of people of his time by the same way, like many proponents of Aether concept today.
  5. Both Holy Church at Galileo era, both mainstream science today have developed a tools for fast classification of renegades and crackpots without deeper analysis of their ideas, for example Malleus maleficarum handbook or famous crackpot index.
  6. Heliocentric model was opposed by lack of stellar parallax regarding to Earth absolute motion, Aether model was opposed by lack of reference frame motion regarding to Earth absolute motion. This connection renders Aether model controversy as a direct analogy of heliocentric model controversy, just at different space-time scale.
  7. While lack of parallax is was quite relevant argument against heliocentrism, the lack of Aether reference frame is result of pure misunderstanding of particle environment concept, as the motion of no environment can be observed by its own waves. This point renders mainstream science even more biased against logic and confused, then the proponents of geocentricism at Galileo time.
  8. Geocentrists have ignored real life physics, the inertial physics in particular, which excludes the motion of heavier Sun around Earth on behalf of epicycles model by the same way, like space-time oriented model of contemporary physics ignores many real life connections of inertial character of vacuum, leading to wave character of light and many other phenomena.
  9. Geocentric model was Platonism based on ad-hoced numerical regression of observation and ad-hoced geometrical constructs (deferents and epicycles) without deeper understanding by the same way, like mainstream physics today, which prefers formal theories based on ad-hoced postulates, abstract geometric constructs (strings, manifolds and branes of M-theory) and overly complex formal regression of reality, which nobody can understand at intuitive level too.
  10. Geocentric model was used for calculations of motion of planets in Galileo times, although we know by now, these observations belongs into dual, i.e. heliocentric model. Analogously, mainstream science is blindly using relativity for interpretations of many phenomena (like gravitational lensing), which belongs into dual models by their very nature. We can consider this paradox a sort of supersymmetry phenomena (a formal model of theory is serving for confirmation of T-dual theory).
  11. Formal models of geocentrists were of infinitesimal practical significance at Galileo times, they served mostly for calculations of horoscopes, based on periods of solar eclipses and planetary conjunctions, which gaved them the sign of authenticity. Many scientists today are using an Aether based models on background and Newtonian physics formalism (the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian calculus in particular) to give the predictability and notion of authenticity to their theories.
  12. Many astronomers earned money like astrologers by bullshitting of layman people by their calculations without deeper understanding of their subject by the same way, like promoters of many scientific theories today, the promoters of string theory in particular.
  13. Background motivation of negativistic stance of promoters of geocentric model was the fear for lost of their informational monopoly for interpretation of reality by mainstream paradigm (a theology in particular). The motivation of the negativism of mainstream scientists toward Aether model is the lost of their monopoly for interpretation of reality by so called scientific method.
  14. The sectarian approach of both mainstream science, both Holy Church and other closed communities is characterized by so called novitiate period, during which new adepts are brainwashed by mainstream approach, before they're allowed to continue in further education and productive work. We can face this in contemporary educational system, where the formal approach to physical lectures prevails instead of more intuitive nonformal one.
It's apparent, history of science just repeats in social cycles at more advanced level of human understanding. Science just switched its progressive role with Holy Church of Galileo era. AWT explains this stance switching by inertial model of nested phase transforms, which is occurring inside of every large particle system during its gradual condensation/compactification.

When such system becomes sufficiently dense, its free-thinking particles will change into correlated, self-censored continuum, i.e. fluid or waves of energy. After then the density fluctuations of this fluid will behave like new generation of particles, while the former generations of particles are behaving like space-time or like energy wave by now. It means, the matter/particles and energy/space will switch their roles gradually and this evolution can repeat many times.

It may be interesting to follow, whether proponents of Aether theory will become such a brake of further evolution of science by the same way, like Holy Church of Galileo era or the proponents of mainstream science today. Thorough understanding of AWT pluralism should prohibit the formation of bias in ideology, though. We'll see. If nothing else, dense Aether concept could define a new era of ethics, tolerance and humanity understanding.

10 komentářů:

  1. live:
    AWT on PhysOrg (closed) -banned
    AWT on SciForums (closed)-banned
    AWT on BautForum (closed) - banned

  2. If I calculate well (..easy, just kidding) - I was banned on about twentyfive forums till now.

  3. The scientific world sees reason for math. Without math, you cannot make falsifiable statements.Without falsifiable statements you do not have a theory since whatever you have cannot be tested experimentally.So, since by your own admission you have no math, it means that you do not have any theory!

  4. ...without math, you cannot make falsifiable statements....

    It would mean, the above statement of yours is not falsifiable too. Why I should care about it, after then? Please explain....

  5. "he above statement of yours is not falsifiable too. Why I should care about it, after then?"..Hmm..What a silly question. My statement isn`t any theory !

  6. without math, you cannot make falsifiable statements

    Dear Anonymus, nope.

    What you're saying is wrong. Maybe your intentions are good, but your arguments are completely misguided. And there are very clear examples.

    On the one hand, exist a fundamental model, called string theory, which his aim is to explain the nature using the philosophy of the high energy physics. This model is characterized by having a lot of math. A quotation from wikipedia:

    "(...) results from physics are used to help prove facts in abstract mathematics which themselves have nothing particular to do with physics. This phenomenon has become increasingly important, with developments from string theory research breaking new ground in mathematics. Eric Zaslow coined the phrase physmatics to describe these developments[2], although other people would consider them as part of mathematical physics proper. (...)"

    However, at the moment, String Theory doesn't make falsifiable predictions. At least, she doesn't make predictions which could be tested by the experiments that are going to be perform in the foreseeable future.

    On the other hand, Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (MES), is the best theory available to describe the fact that is called evolution. In the same way that General relativity (GR) is the best theory to describe the gravity. But while, GR can be exactly described using the language of the differential geometry, namely using math, there is not a math formulation to describe MES. Nevertheless, both theories make predictions that have been confirmed in many experiments.

    AWT is the third way to describe the fundamental laws of nature. Not like the particle physics, because this method has clearly failed (and string theory is the proof), but with another philosophy. Although, the math are not necessary for AWT, AWT is other sort of theory as well.

  7. sorry, El Cid don`t give me that crap. You got that all wrong.

  8. What is the best method to explain the Nature, for you? Do you think String Theory is useful for someone or something? What do you think about the Multiverse? What do you think about the 10^500 vacua found in the Landscape of the String Theory which could be the vacuum of new universes with other systems of physical laws? What is the interpretation of the n-dimensional branes for you? What is the number of dimensions of our universe? Even, For what is useful the high energy physics? Why do you think the 'orthodox theories of high energy physics (hep)' are more useful than AWT?

    On the other hand, AWT is an alternative explanation for the Nature, It is the vision of nature as Zephir thinks, but, at least for me is not less useful than the orthodox theories. By the way, I've got very little time, due to work, but I am trying to study quantum field theory and general relativity. Math and Physics are my fun, and the Zephir's blog is really fun, too. ;-)

  9. According with Wikipedia

    In one version of M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between membranes in an 11-dimensional space.'

    According with Susskind, one of the fathers of String Theory and a prominent theoretical physicist (Felix Bloch professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University):

    Based on the recent work of a number of authors, it seems plausible that the lanscape is unimaginably large and diverse. Whether we like it or not, this is the kind of behaviour that gives credence to the Anthropic Principle

    Why do you think these claims are more correct than the claims made by Zephir?

  10. In fact, there are many mechanisms, which are making scientists even more conservative under contemporary educational and grant system, then the Holy Church of Galileo era.

    Just try to imagine, you should learn some paradigm many years and to plan experiments in many years in advance to become "productive" in mainstream science environment.

    As the number of knowledge increases and the cost of experiments increases, the evolution of mainstream science will effectivelly freeze due the limited timespan of human life -

    We are facing supersymmetric "dark matter" phenomena here - scientists like internal observers of this evolution can get feeling, their universe of knowledge expands - but from perspective of surrounding society their approach becomed a brake of further evolution already.


Poznámka: Komentáře mohou přidávat pouze členové tohoto blogu.