|
Alex, you have this fixation with magnetic fields and electromagnetism to the point of almost the exclusivity of everything else. Astronomers and physicists do not exclude the actions of EM in the workings of the universe. They just dispute it's importance in the overall scheme of things when it comes to the main driving forces within the universe. No one is disputing that EM fields are important factor in the way many particles are accelerated to enormous speeds in accretion disks, bipolar jets, sculpt the shapes of gas and dust clouds within galaxies etc etc. But to come out and say it's the main driving force behind everything and that gravity and other forces are secondary to it, is taking things just a little too far. It's all well and good to be able to say that EM is the main driving process behind many of the phenomena we see, but the crux of the matter is being able to prove it. This not only means being able to show the proof through observation but also being able to model the observations and propose theories as to how it all works. Quoting what Tesla said is not proof of anything, nor is it a vindication of anyone's pet ideas. Tesla was a great experimental scientist, but he was far from knowing about or understanding what there is in physics (or the universe). What he failed to realise is that you can't just look at something and then know everything about how it works. There's far more to understanding a process than observing that process in work. That's where the mathematics and theory come into play. It is then where observation either prove, disprove or modify those theories and mathematics. It's the way science works. You cannot have one part without the other. Otherwise it's not really science...only curious tinkering, and around the edges at that.
It's not about "upsetting the boys who wrote the textbooks" that'll wreck a career for anyone. Sometimes it does put you on the outer and doesn't win you favours. I'm all for different ideas and alternatives to what constitutes the present paradigm, but you have to be very much on your toes and know what you're on about. Otherwise you'll make yourself out to be a twit. Scientist, just like many others, have a habit of holding onto pet ideas to the exclusivity of other possibilities. But in order to have an idea which is worth considering, you also have to have good solid evidence supporting your idea. Otherwise it's just speculation at best. Yes, scientist can also be hard nosed about the "state of play" and what constitutes "reality". But many of those others who espouse alternative theories can be just as hard nosed and hidebound. There needs to be a balance between the two, but unfortunately ego and human nature intervene all too often. As well as plain and simple ignorance and closed mindedness. Or it goes completely in the opposite direction, which is just as bad. You have to be careful about jumping onto any bandwagon, just because it appeals to your maverick nature or your conservatism. More often than not, bandwagons have a habit of losing their wheels and coming apart in rather inglorious crashes. We all feel on the outer at times and feel that we may know the right answers and everyone else is not on the right path. But feeling that and being able to prove it and have convincing evidence of that proof is an entirely different thing.
It's like this...I think that traveling faster than light is eminently feasible and that too many of the physicists for far too long have had their collective heads jammed up Einstein's rear end all because of his theories. They're enamoured by them and can't see past the aura they produce. That's not to say that Einstein got it all wrong....he didn't and his theories do hold a lot of water. But he is not the be all and end all of everything there is to know about the workings of gravity or anything else for that matter. Suffice to say, I believe we have most of the physics now which will allow us to achieve the desired goal. However, there are some important pieces which are still missing yet and we need to connect the dots in order to join both ends up. Don't ask me what those dots are. I don't know, and neither do most other scientist at present. But I believe they'll find them soon enough. Probably within the next 50-100 years or so. It's probably going to take someone like Ed Witten to figure it out, but they'll do it. Who knows, might even be Ed himself.
|