Dear Dr. Gaede,
An acquaintance of mine recently laughed in my face (repeatedly) for thinking that the traditional scientific method, based on the operational point of view, is still a valuable methodology for distinguishing true information from false information. Despite his deprecating manner, I agreed to watch a couple of your videos, and was thinking of reading your book, until I heard you describe mathematical physics as “mathe-magical”, a clearly condescending and self-aggrandizing term.
It was at that moment that I decided that I would postpone reading your book until such time as you answered a few questions to my satisfaction. Here are the first eight questions that popped into my head. I hope you find them useful in further clarifying your rope hypothesis.
You’ve indicated that “Rational Science” (RS) is superior to “Mathemagical Science” (MS) because it “explains” observable phenomena. How do you decide when something has been explained? Alternatively, how do you know when an “explanation” is valid or invalid?
You define “objects” by their “shape” and suggest they are “real” if you can draw (visualize) them – and you offer the example of lifting a well- bucket with a rope and pulley as an example of “Rational Physics” (RP).
a. Must “objects” be visible to the naked human eye in order to qualify as "objects"?
b. Is an amoeba, visible only with a microscope, an “object”?
c. The well-bucket rope has many properties. What are the properties of the “ropes” you hypothesize are connecting particles?
~ Why just 2 strands? Why not 3 or 7 or 49?
~ How, specifically, are the strands connected to the particles? (By buckets?)
~ Do ropes ever become detached from the particles?
~ How thick are the strands?
~ Do they stretch? If so, how?
~ When a “rope” is stretched, do the individual strands stretch?
~ How many twists are there between any 2 particles?
~ What causes “torquing”?
~ Do the strands compress longitudinally under torque?
d. Since you have drawn ropes, I infer you consider them as “objects”, and therefor appropriate items for RT discussion.
How are “invisible objects” less “magical” than fields?
Since “ropes” are not visible, their presence must be somehow inferred. How can you infer the presence of “ropes” without the use of “concepts” that your RS exempts from RS and RP?
You’ve described “ropes” as being “electromagnetic”. What does that mean if it doesn’t involve “fields, a concept you deplore”?
You have said that “entanglement” is just the torquing of the rope connecting two particles and that it propagates as a “signal” at the speed of light. What in RS makes such an inference necessary? And how is “speed” not a forbidden “concept” in RS?
In the absence of measurements and predictions, by what criteria is RS superior to MS? And is it in fact superior?
The well-known double slit experiment is regarded in quantum mechanics as proof that there are acausal events. The components of the experiment can be drawn so it is presumably a proper subject of RS and RP. How does RS account for ("explain") the observable results of the experiment?
Are clocks “objects” according to RS? If so, how would you avoid defining “time” as that which a clock measures? Clocks of various kinds can certainly be visualized and drawn. The process by which a person measures time with a clock can certainly be diagrammed in detail. So how can you maintain that time is irrelevant to Rational Science? Even understanding the raising of a well-bucket when seeing an illustration of the act requires grasping what is meant by “motion” - and how is one to do that without the concept of time?
And finally, while I understand the need to think non-scientifically in order to extend the capabilities of science, I fail to see the need to abandon the operational point of view in favor of Newtonian intuition. Can you explain why you have done this?
Rather than attempt to change every definition that scientists have used in the history of science, it would make more sense to me to call your new discipline, “Gaedence” rather than science, and to call the methodology the “Gaedentic Method” rather than the scientific method. That would eliminate a lot of the confusion some of us experience trying to match up familiar words with unfamiliar ideas.
Cordially,
Bob Podolsky
Congratulations @borisheir! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPTo support your work, I also upvoted your post!
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
After posting the article above, hoping in good faith to learn something useful about "rational scientific method", I got non-responsive responses from someone going by the pseudonym of "Monk E. Mind" (Monkey Mind). None of my questions were answered and, when I persisted in my questioning, I was blocked from making further replies.
Then, Bill Gaede entered the discussion and proceeded to make fun of me, to belittle me, and to imply that I am stupid, childish, and ignorant. It was, in fact, the most verbal abuse I've ever encountered in my life.
When I commented to this effect and quit the group, another group member, who calls himself "John Smith" continued the abuse by accusing me of being the abuser.
My "take-away" from this experience is that the mentality of the "Rational Scientific Method" group is exactly the same as that of the "Flat Earth" crowd. Their intention is clearly to disparage real science and the use of reasoning and logic. This, of course, raises the question of motivation.
There have always been people who try to acquire the esteem of the public by "de-bunking" the work of well known scientists, and at first this is what I thought of flat earth proponents. But now, in light of my experience with "Rational Scientists", I'm inclined to think that there is something more insidious afoot... that there may actually be a concerted effort by the ruling elite to make thinking itself unpopular. With so many people becoming aware of the deceptions that have dominated our lives, it would be instrumental for the elite nobility to attack the thinkers and truth-tellers who actually understand what is happening.
What are YOUR thoughts on this subject?
Hello @borisheir! This is a friendly reminder that you can download Partiko today and start earning Steem easier than ever before!
Partiko is a fast and beautiful mobile app for Steem. You can login using your Steem account, browse, post, comment and upvote easily on your phone!
You can even earn up to 3,000 Partiko Points per day, and easily convert them into Steem token!
Download Partiko now using the link below to receive 1000 Points as bonus right away!
https://partiko.app/referral/partiko