[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Theory acceptance- was Re: Secondary Resonance LC and Harmonics



Original poster: Mddeming@xxxxxxx

Hi Stork,

The three principles laid out have been generally accepted by all branches of mainstream science for almost a century. I believe that #2 is a generalization to all science of Bohr's quantum/classical "correspondence principle" ca 1920. These can be thought of as three screening rules for membership to the "Club of Respected Scientific Theories". In the purest sense, they are arbitrary, but quite logical. Just like 3 strikes and you're out in baseball, you only have to accept it if you want to play baseball with others. (You can always sit off in your own field and play with yourself.)

Maxwell's work was vindicated by the fact that millions of radio transmitters and receivers work as predicted, and millions of experiments done in optics and light show results as predicted on the macroscopic scale.

I don't remember Feynman trashing Maxwell in his QED lectures. As the Q in QED implies, this explains what happens at the sub-microscopic levels of light/electron interactions.For macroscopic phenomena, they tend to predict the same general behaviors.

Galileo did not replace astrology with astronomy. Astrology attempts to predict human behavior and future events based on the apparent positions of astronomical bodies. Astronomy attempts to explain and predict their positions and motions. He did replace the geocentric astronomy with heliocentric astronomy. Some astronomers of his time and after (and quite a few new-age whackos) accepted both astrology and heliocentric astronomy.

To many scientists, a theory is neither true not false. It is either useful or not useful to understand and accurately predict some behavior of some aspect of the universe. In many cases, the difference is between more useful and less useful. To date, few (if any) on this list seem convinced of the superiority of your theories over traditional ones by these criteria.

Hope this clarifies the issue somewhat,

Matt D.

" I refuse to get into a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."


In a message dated 6/28/05 8:52:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, tesla@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
Original poster: stork <stork@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Matt

Who wrote these three edicts?

>1) Adequate specific procedures and hard data must be provided to allow
>third parties to attempt duplication of any results that purport to
>support the theory.

Let's see.  Please tell us where to find the hard facts and specific
procedures for duplication of results in support of the mythical
"displacement current" in Maxwell's equation.

>2) The new theory must reduce to the traditional one in all cases where
>the traditional explanation is known to hold.

Yeah, that's exactly what Galileo did when he replaced astrology with his
heretical new science of astronomy.

>3) The new theory must also, in at least one repeatable case, make an
>accurate prediction where the traditional theory does not.

How about Quantum Electrodynamics?  It obviates all field theory in
Maxwellian electrodynamics.

stork