[Physics] Our own peer review / group think process.

[Ilja Schmelzer]

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 11:57 AM <mikelawr at freenetname.co.uk> wrote:
> Good of you to comment, but have you ever heard of the concept of 'Group
> Think'. The peer review process is a pefect example of how to do group
> think.

The point being?  I'm not part of any group.  The mainstream rejects
me because I develop ether theories, the ether theoreticians reject me
because I base them on the SM and GR instead of classical EM and
Newtonian gravity, I would guess either because they have not learned
SM and GR or because they have an own pet theory.

2020-04-29 6:28 GMT+06:30, Arend Lammertink <lamare at gmail.com>:
> Are you aware you sent this to me only, while replying to what mike said?

No, that's why I have added it here too.

> The way I see it, Maxwell's equations form a broken foundation that
> needs to be fixed, no matter what. I'm afraid I've done my homework on
> that one and I don't see any way how I could possibly be incorrect on
> this particular issue, especially because the math is so obvious. The
> consequence of this fix will be that there is no longer any gauge
> freedom in the model, as should be if the aether really behaves like a
> fluid.
>
> At the end of the day, either two conclusions are possible with
> respect to Maxwell:
>
> 1) it is correct and there are no longitudinal FTL "Tesla" waves;
>
> 2) it is not correct and recourse must be taken to LaPlace / Helmholtz.

The Maxwell equations have been well-tested already in the
pre-relativistic pre-quantum times. There is simply no room for
correcting there something.

Longitudinal waves can be easily added, as waves of the gauge degrees
of freedom. In this case, they would simply fly around without
interacting with usual matter.  The difference would be only
metaphysical - mainstream gauge theory is essentially the attempt to
get rid, even at the cost of essentially complicating the math, of
those unobservable gauge degrees of freedom which don't interact with
usual matter. If you use, instead, the gauge potentials as the
fundamental fields, and use the most natural Lorenz gauge, they move
with the usual speed of light.

> So, perhaps the question is: why is it so hard for you to accept option 2?

I see clear errors in your justification.

> And why do you (apparently) see this as a rejection of you and/or your
> work?

I simply propose my own work.

> To me, it's not a matter of "my model" vs "your model" but a matter of
> finding common ground so we can eventually come to an "our model"
> which makes clear to everybody that the mainstream emperor has no
> clothes.

I'm not that anti-mainstream.  I think the experimenters make their
job, and the experimental clothes are quite fine. If not, I have no
chance to correct them anyway.

Where the mainstream fails is metaphysics.  This is the part where
they even refuse to discuss anything, based on positivist nonsense
ideas that metaphysics are worthless and should not be discussed -
which only protects the established metaphysics against criticism.