Jean de Climont - The worldwide list of dissident scienticts 1501-2137 - Part 4
Roman Baudrimont independentresearcher.academia.edu
Page 1501-2137 part 4 This directory, available exclusively in English,includes scientists who propose alternative theories or who disagree on generally accepted positions exclusively in the field of physics (natural philosophy), referenced to on the
In this paper, the substance of gravity and inertial forces is debunked. The substance of mass is recovered. The nature of time in physics is revealed. The reality of the double-slit experiment is revealed. This paper shows that Quarks and Higgs boson hardly exist. This paper documents that, for past four hundred years, there is no distinguished physicist who would not have recognized the existence of the ether. It shows that filling the space of the Universe with swirling ether is all that is needed for the self-evolution of the Universe. It further provides an overview of the opposition of the physicists against the mainstream physical image of the world for the past hundred years. And finally, it documents the basic historical, philosophical and physical reasons for denial of the main physical theories of the 20th century.

This paper show that the purpose of the physical theories by theoretical physicists produced in the 20th century (special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, force fields theories using forcemediating particles, the standard model of quark theory, the Big Bang and the Higgs boson theories) is to conceal the existence of physical fields as a real material media. Force action of these media is replaced in these theories by the mathematics of kinematical quantities. In fact, these kinematical quantities describe the physical material world, which works on the principle of balance and changes of pressure of the densities of the material body and of the material force fields surrounding these bodies. Under the supervision of the power structures and the mass information media these physically deformed theories are an untouchable truth of the order of the universe, as was the case in the past, in the case of Ptolemy’s geocentric mathematical description of the universe, an untoucha...

This review was inspired by this 460-page book that tells the story of the development of theories of matter. It's title gives the misleading impression that Science now understands the physical universe: it does not. Indeed, its two aims are to explain How the physical world works. 'How' is limited and it utterly fails to address the Why types of questions that Word-Smiths ('Philosophers') have raised; inspired by analogies with failed attempts to model physical objects, as purposeful mini-examples of human agents. This book is basically a history of PHYSICS with an attempt to explain it to the non-physicists. The author falsely assumes that a knowledge of the pre-Newtonian thinking about the World of Nature will help us to understand physics and cosmology thereafter: it does NOT. There are three stages in our views of nature: Historical, Classical and Modern. These are three very different views: as Thomas Kuhn showed, these are very different paradigms that each make a major break with their predecessors. Park clearly shows, in the first 1/3 of the book how we had began to make suitable, abstract mini-examples ("Models") of some simple parts of the world, that is now known as Historical philosophy. Then Classical Physics is briefly covered but wanders off into the Unknown without any real understanding. Modern Physics, being left with only mathematical representations of the invisible 'Objects' that are all we can propose to date. Like most theoretical physicists, his expertise is too heavily invested in mathematical techniques but he has not been able to show that Historical Natural Philosophy helps with making much progress in achieving better understanding of Twentieth Century physics in the final 1/3 of the book. This is a 'Bait-and-Switch' book that tries to use the past to explain modern physics, where Park utterly fails to provide any physical understanding of orthodox, mathematical physics that is all that is left, in the shell of physics today. NB The reviewer takes this opportunity to introduce his relational, unitary model to explain ALL of physics in terms of only electrons in a model understandable to non-scientists and regular physicists.

For two reasons, physics occupies a preeminent position among the sciences. On the one hand, due to its recognized position as a fundamental science, and on the other hand, due to the characteristic of its obvious certainty of knowledge. For both reasons it is regarded as the paradigm of scientificity par excellence. With its focus on the issue of epistemic certainty, philosophy of science follows in the footsteps of classical epistemology, and this is also the basis of its &#39;judicial&#39; pretension vis-à-vis physics. Whereas physics is in a strong competitive relationship to philosophy and epistemology with respect to its position as a fundamental science - even on the subject of cognition, as the pretension of &#39;reductionism&#39; shows. It is the thematic focus on epistemic certainty itself, however, that becomes the root of a profound epistemological misunderstanding of physics. The reason for this is twofold: first, the idea of epistemic certainty as a criterion of &#39;d...

Although many find it hard to believe that every physical thing-no matter how simple or small-involves some form of consciousness, panpsychists offer the reassurance that their claims are perfectly compatible with everything physics has to say about the physical world. This is because although physics has a lot to say about causal and structural properties it has nothing to say about the intrinsic natures of physical things, and if physics is silent in this regard it is perfectly possible that everything physical has an experiential intrinsic nature. Following in Thomas Nagel's footsteps, panpsychists have also argued that by revealing that everything is composed of the same fundamental ingredients, physics provides grounds for holding that if any physical things (e.g. our neural processes) have an experiential intrinsic nature then all must. My main contention in this paper is that the relationship between physics and panpsychism is considerably more complex than panpsychists have tended to assume. Nagel's reasoning may be sound in the context of simplistic atomic theories which posit just one kind of fundamental particle. However, it begins to look distinctly dubious in the context of the diverse range of primitive entities that are to be found in the Standard Model of particle physics. Galen Strawson has suggested that mass-energy interconvertibility should be regarded as evidence that everything physical has the same intrinsic nature. I suggest Strawson's claim relies on a dubious construal of the nature of energy. Special relativity is another of the cornerstones of contemporary physics, and it too makes life difficult for panpsychists, a fact which emerges when we consider what it would like to be a ray of light. However in this case I suggest that there is an interesting-if radical-move open to the panpsychist: they can simply deny that light exists. To conclude I briefly consider whether what QCD has revealed about the nature of mass poses a problem for panpsychism.