Alternative Rocking

[ellyssian]

Larry Spring's Alternative Theory of Electromagnetism - seems interesting, turns existing ideas on their heads, which is always healthy. I particularly enjoyed the cartoon on peer review... I look at it slightly different though, and see the new solutions as solid and firm, and most of the waves seem to come from those who fear change. Anyway, any thoughts on the matter? (Any physicists read this?)

Comments

[kay-brooke.livejournal.com]

I admittedly don't know a lot about physics, but the information on that site seems to show a lack of understanding of some basic concepts. It's also suspicious that there is almost no information on the experiments this guy did and what exactly they showed, just some flashy shows making absolute statements.

The peer review cartoon is, frankly, insulting. The idea behind peer review is not to shut out new ideas or to hold on to old ideas at all costs. The idea behind it is: "Great, you think you've discovered something new/different/more in depth to what we already theorize. Now convince us to take you seriously." If your experiments and observations don't stand up to scrutiny, then that's your problem and you need to address it, by coming up with better or more reliable experiments, or approaching it from a different angle. There is no productivity in coming up with conspiracy theories about how the establishment is preserving the status quo. That's going to do nothing but label you as a nutjob, deserved or not.

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

I actually stopped short of going to the experimentation links - I'll have to check that out later. Actually, a large number of links there I still haven't explored.

I definitely agree on the flashy nature - seems like someone else constructed the site to try to deify him. More like a shrine than anything else. As soon as I get some time, I'm going to do some searching and see if I can turn up some information on how his theories are being accepted.

I'm basing my interpretation of the peer review cartoon on personal experience - and, sadly, the knowledge that I've tried to bring up isn't exactly cutting edge stuff that will earn me great accolades in my field (databases and programming,) most of it relates to industry standards with a decade of experience under its belt, but it's not how they were told to do things, so it doesn't work (primary key/foreign keys and database views were two of the most controversial topics.) With that background, I can easily understand the feeling that your peers aren't exactly your peer on all levels, and that sometimes they refuse to see what is in front of them because it's different than what they expect.

Back to the site again, I think the reason it shows a lack of understanding of certain concepts is that he's trying to re-write what those concepts should be, right or wrong.

I'm by no means a physics expert, but I do understand some of the basics on electricity and magnetism. I only gave the site a cursory review over lunchtime, so I'm certainly missing more than just following all the links! =)

Despite that, here's my stab based on a rather intuitive (as opposed to analytic) first look: His atomic theory - as far as electron flow goes - seems possible; the magnaspheres would take a bit more review before I'd even okay them to that point - either I missed a critical jump in his logic, or it's flat out not there. I think it might be something with gravity that's throwing me - just doesn't seem right.

In this case, the guy very well may turn out to prove that his peers aren't the physicists, scientists, electromagnetists, and so-forthists, rather a bunch of nutjobs, instead!

[kay-brooke.livejournal.com]

With that background, I can easily understand the feeling that your peers aren't exactly your peer on all levels, and that sometimes they refuse to see what is in front of them because it's different than what they expect.

You'll get that in any field. People don't particularly like to change their thinking. That's why things like evidence and verification are so important.

Back to the site again, I think the reason it shows a lack of understanding of certain concepts is that he's trying to re-write what those concepts should be, right or wrong.

That's all well and good, but where's the evidence? The experimental portion of the site didn't tell me much beyond what he used. There was nothing about how he used it, his observations, and what about them lead him to believe the currently accepted theories of physics are wrong. No flow of logic, nothing to back up his claims. Granted I only spent a few minutes in that section of the site, but I don't hold out much hope of their being anything there.

I mean, I can make all kinds of outrageous claims that current theories (for any science) are wrong, and propose my own in place of them, but no one is going to take me seriously unless I can cough up the evidence I have in support of my new ideas. He could be the greatest genius in the world and be perfectly correct, but unless he can communicate why the rest of the world should listen to him in a currently acceptable way (namely, peer review and giving enough information about his work for independent verification) then it means nothing. I don't at all buy the whole logic that seems to go with that peer review cartoon: that peer review is ultimately flawed because none of your peers have heard of this new idea of yours and thus cannot judge it. I see that as a major misunderstanding of the peer review process. Is it then his belief that no new ideas can ever be communicated to anyone else?

(Incidentally, what specifically threw me about the whole magnesphere thing was his reimaging of atomic structure, and specifically his assertion that gravity was what held atoms together. This is not true based on what we know, and if he has indeed stumbled upon a quantum theory of gravity then every theoretical physicist on the planet should be beating down his door, even if only in an attempt to prove him wrong)

But it all comes down to evidence. I don't think current scientists would ever be shown to be nutjobs by this guy, because even in the event their theories are wrong, they have still presented evidence and support for their claims, evidence that can be further supported or not depending on further work by themselves and other people. That's how science works. Science doesn't work by someone just claiming something is so and just leaving it at that. So as long as there is nothing of real content on that site, I will remain suspicious of its validity.

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

You'll get that in any field. People don't particularly like to change their thinking. That's why things like evidence and verification are so important.

Certainly. In the example I gave, ten years of implementation and industry-wide acceptance were refuted by "Oh, development tried that once, and it didn't work." From my experience, people who don't like to change their thinking tend to not look openly at the evidence or make an honest attempt to verify it.

I would never argue that evidence and verification should be absent.

That's all well and good, but where's the evidence? ... Granted I only spent a few minutes in that section of the site, but I don't hold out much hope of their being anything there.

I'm willing to bet he can't back them all up, either. There was one section that had listed observations, verifications, discoveries by others, and beliefs. They were, however, single bullet items, without references to supporting information

I mean, I can make all kinds of outrageous claims that current theories (for any science) are wrong, and propose my own in place of them, but no one is going to take me seriously unless I can cough up the evidence I have in support of my new ideas.

Agreed.

I don't at all buy the whole logic that seems to go with that peer review cartoon: that peer review is ultimately flawed because none of your peers have heard of this new idea of yours and thus cannot judge it. I see that as a major misunderstanding of the peer review process.

I'm willing to bet he received some bad reviews, or people unwilling to even consider his ideas, and that's what he's reacting to. I can see why some of his rethinking could cause the latter, and that would be similar to my reaction to the cartoon.

If, however, he received bad reviews because his ideas are flawed or because they are completely unsupported other than by his own assertion that they're true, than they seem fairly well deserved. If it's because his ideas are flawed, he should accept the feedback and return to the drawing board. If there's no grounds whatsoever, than he can be firmly catagorized in the crackpot category.

Is it then his belief that no new ideas can ever be communicated to anyone else?

Given we're dealing with a potential crackpot, than that might be so. From my POV, I'd say that a lot of people aren't willing to accept communication they don't want to hear. The challenge is to communicate it to them, or, depending on the situation, replace them with people who are willing to communicate (which is not the same as people who automatically agree - other POVs are necessary to the continued health of the company/project/etc.)

(Incidentally, what specifically threw me about the whole magnesphere thing was his reimaging of atomic structure, and specifically his assertion that gravity was what held atoms together. ...)

That might be the bit where gravity set me off as well. I need to look at it deeper. My dad (his department was, for a time, named Continum Electromechanics - he has been involved in some of the key research this guy is refuting/undermining/providing an alternate for) will be looking at it when he comes home from the hospital, and a friend from work - physics major - will be looking into it as well.

I don't think current scientists would ever be shown to be nutjobs by this guy, because even in the event their theories are wrong, they have still presented evidence and support for their claims, evidence that can be further supported or not depending on further work by themselves and other people.

Agreed. Not sure if this is a result of a misunderstanding of my statement Larry's peers are not scientists but are nutjobs instead - I wasn't implying that the scientists who oppose him were nutjobs, but that Larry hisself might be a nutjob.

That's how science works. ... So as long as there is nothing of real content on that site, I will remain suspicious of its validity.

Certainly. I'm off to get some more info from the site and look into some of those peer reviews, if I can track them down.

Think I'll add another tag to this to track later posts on the subject: springmatics! =)

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

On the communication/independent verification bit, a part of his site where he discusses "Independent Discoveries" - which I read as "stuff other people found out which is applicable to what I'm working on" - seems to mean something more like "stuff I found out that other's haven't - nyah nyah nyah nyah!"

re larryspring

[curator-lspring.livejournal.com]

Hi,
I wanted to comment on the thread, as I'm the "curator" of Larry's site. I stumbled onto to Larry's school four years ago while taking a sabbatical from the www to write a children's book on Albert Einstein.

Larry let me stay in the attic of his school to work uninterrupted. I created the web site, as a thank you for his kindness. I recognized that he was a real treasure, whether he was right or wrong, and that his work was in danger of being lost.

My hope in creating the website was to attract the attention of someone with a true understanding of quantum physics who would investigate Larry's findings with an open heart and mind, while Larry is still with us. (He turned 90 this month.) He is wealth of untapped information, as his teachings only scratch the surface and have been poorly and perhaps naively communicated be me.

As a footnote... If only Einstein was still here.
It will be a rare person who can suspend their "knowledge" and keep an open mind long enough to give Larry's basics a chance. There may be flaws, but how glorious if there is truth also. Einstein was unable to resolve unification with the knowledge he had and eventually turned his back on his own work in Quantum physics. (Quantum was deemed random and ugly.) As he searched the basics for their underlaying beauty perhaps his own knowledge got in the way.

What is more elegant and beautiful (and super symetrical) than energy defined as a pure massless 1/2 wavelength radiated magnetic spheres activating electrons in their path. (heat)
Certainly they can explain a lot with the existing models of electromagnetism etc, but Larry's models can do the same and more.
Imagine... friction described as resistance to movement through a magnetic field from the galactic to the subatomic because atoms are magnets whose nucleus creates an electron barrier...
I would be delighted to personally pass questions on to Larry to respond to on the website. (which by the way, he has barely glanced at and also finds a little too showey for his taste.)

Re: re larryspring

[patrixa.livejournal.com]

can one have a sphere without mass?

Recommended reading: Synergetics - R. Buckminster Fuller

[(Anonymous)]

If you want to read some interesting ideas about the peer review process and the general rejection of new ideas by the scientific mainstream, as well as the intrinsic ties between verification of scientific experiments and acceptance of credibility (ie: people will accept verification from "credible" sources even if it has been deemed credible only via social conditioning, etc.), then I would highly recommend reading Synergetics by R. Buckminster Fuller.

It is available in its entirety on the web.

Although Fuller does not corroborate any of Spring's experiments, he does encourage the kind of free-thinking observation, experimentation and open-mindedness that Spring & other alternative scientists regularly partake in.

URL: http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/synergetics.html

PS: here's a quote from RW Gray's website, the host of 'Synergetics on the Web' ...

"According to Karl Popper, the true scientist is someone who tries to contradict his own assumptions." - Quoted from The Memory of Water: Homoeopathy and the Battle of Ideas in the New Science by Michel Schiff, Thorsons, 1994, p. 110.

Re: Recommended reading: Synergetics - R. Buckminster Fuller

[ellyssian.livejournal.com]

And a mysterious commentator appears...