<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt"><div id="yiv1353580501"><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: times new roman, new york, times, serif; font-size: 14pt; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div id="yiv1353580501yui_3_2_0_18_1316958956476134"><span>Anders <span id="yiv1353580501misspell-0"><span id="misspell-0" class="mark">Sandberg</span></span> wrote:</span></div><div id="yiv1353580501yui_3_2_0_18_1316958956476136"><span></span> </div><div id="yiv1353580501yui_3_2_0_18_1316958956476138">"How do we judge the <span id="yiv1353580501misspell-1"><span id="misspell-1" class="mark">likeliehood</span></span> of radical changes of physics?"<br><br>"Assuming we were to have to either drop relativity or causality, </div><div id="yiv1353580501yui_3_2_0_18_1316958956476140">but did not know which, what method would we use to determine </div><div
id="yiv1353580501yui_3_2_0_18_1316958956476142">the most rational course of action?"</div><div id="yiv1353580501yui_3_2_0_18_1316958956476144"> </div><div id="yiv1353580501yui_3_2_0_18_1316958956476146"><span id="yiv1353580501misspell-2"><span id="yiv1353580501yui_3_2_0_1_131695895647618246">Implicit</span></span> in the questions is the idea that there is a "we" - a collective</div><div id="yiv1353580501yui_3_2_0_18_1316958956476148">decision to be made to establish a new consensus or orthodoxy that</div><div id="yiv1353580501yui_3_2_0_18_1316958956476150">we all somehow share. I would argue that the pressures to form</div><div id="yiv1353580501yui_3_2_0_18_1316958956476152">a poorly conceived or unwilling consensus has in a number of </div><div>instances lead to bad science and in this case a bad physics affecting</div><div>all of science.</div><div> </div><div>A related problem is the collectivist funding of education and
science</div><div>under the banner of consensus and orthodoxy. After all we can't</div><div>have government money funding the wrong ideas so we must use</div><div>the gun of government to decide which views are to be supported -</div><div>and by default those which are to be divested of support. Who</div><div>will control the gun of government in making the consensus</div><div>decisions and direct future education for all? The decision makers</div><div>will be those who are able to best integrate into the structure of</div><div>government and adapt to the needs and desires of government.</div><div>What happens to private investment in science when the money</div><div>is taken from private hands then directed towards those supporting</div><div>government directed orthodox science?</div><div> </div><div>I support a free market in science where all can compete for </div><div>acceptance of ideas and money to fund research.
Consensus can </div><div>exist along side differing views that are never resolved. Consensus</div><div>funded at the point of a gun can keep everyone on the same page but</div><div>if that page is the wrong page the error is difficult to correct and the</div><div>damage can continue for generations.</div><div> </div><div>I have very specific and radical views of what needs to change in</div><div>physics. I do not expect the orthodoxy to suddenly pivot [as if</div><div>an oil tanker at full steam can turn on a dime]. I do however</div><div>resent public funding of opposing viewpoints and public funding</div><div>of education pushing those opposing viewpoints using my hard</div><div>earned money taken at gunpoint.</div><div> </div><div>I am very happy to discuss what needs to happen in physics</div><div>to correct the errors of the past and forge better theories but</div><div>I do not see it as a directed process where the
mysterious</div><div>"we" has any final say.</div><div> </div><div>Dennis May</div><div> </div><div> <var id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></div></div></div></div></body></html>