You know that feeling when someone asks a question and you realise that your great new theory of science is wrong. You thank them for their observation … and then kick yourself for being such a dumb arse.
And then you wake up next morning realising that when you start amending the theory to take account of your stupid mistake – the way you have to change it means it’s far more profound and earth-shattering theory than you realised?
And then as your mind is thinking about all the wonderous new effects and what it means … you tell your daughter and they say: “My hair needs doing, I’m late for school”.
And it’s snowing.
(Who said kids won’t know what snow is – I’m going out!)
Oh GOODY Mike. Remember:
Scottish Sceptic permalink October 6, 2016 4:35 pm
“I once read a description of Einstein’s theory of relativity as a political band aid to patch over the failure of Maxwellian Electromagnetic Wave theory. In other words, it was not accepted because it was good – only because it was less worse than having a theory that was patently wrong.”
A vast misunderstanding of Maxwell’s equations! All 22 of them, in the Quaternion version. Such appears over-constrained because that version contains Lorentz invariance, even unknown to Maxwell! The alternate John Poynting vector version of both EM field strength (Poynting vector) and EM flux (Poynting flux) the vector summation of all Poynting vectors at any location and frequency. The Poynting version allows the very directional EM flux from many emitters used in modern phased array radar. The Quaternion version strictly affirms Einstein’s special and general relativity, especially for non-initial EMR flux, Doppler radar.
“Also, we still have ridiculous science. Take e.g. the supposed nature of light that can spread out for a billion years, supposedly existing in minute quantities over a wavefront spreading out of much of the Universe — and then in a single instance — it collapses into a space the size of an atom in an almost arbitrary point on the wave front.”
Once you normalize electromagnetic field strength, using projective geometry, to luminance, brightness, radiance, all of the particle wave duality resolves to the time, (-1/time) conjugate points of view both correctly describing the same phenomena!
“It’s just not science – it’s incapable of being tested, it’s an irrational behaviour – it looks ridiculous etc. But you will still get very bright student parroting it as being unquestionably true.”
I agree, introducing a new valid POV, into all “unquestionably true”; results in vast WTF over for those that have learned but admit “I do not know!”