Maybe good to keep one little thing floating in our minds. All these perceptions and supporting instrumentation may have something static or stable being carried along, something we presume to be fixed and unchanging or quite possibly non-existent. The reality may be as such this something doesn't have to be fixed.
IMO opinion the static s 3/t 1 paradigm that everyone seems to be stuck in is the biggest presumption of all. Words like "field" and "energy" are crutches or abstract concepts at best, that we successfully use for engineering without real conceptual understanding. Smudges idea about forces arising from bombardment by some ponderable particles is much better than the legacy science virtual photon BS, but he still cannot answer what those particles are composed of, why they are ponderable and why nuclei channel them as they do. Solving that conundrum has been done well only by RST and RS2 and that's why I consider that a unique system of theory among the others (...and I read them all). It requires the abandonment of several ingrained presumptions, just as you wrote, and rigid minds have a hard time letting go of some of them - especially the s 3/t 1 paradigm and the need for an "object" to create motion. Those notions are so alien to us that they create the impression of "gobble-de-gook" and "space /time nonsense" despite that nobody in their right mind denies the existence of space and time. Expressing all phenomena in S/T units (such as in this table) would not even be possible if these units were nonsensical apples & oranges. Nature can be as simple that it makes you laugh - the unpenetrable complexity is not a requirement.
« Last Edit: 2015-09-01, 13:39:31 by verpies »
|