This is not a new model. People working with electromagnetic equipment use it more or less all the time. It is about using fields to describe and explain what is happening around us, and in this connection, it is not controversial. It is when this model is presented as an alternative to quantum mechanics and the theories of relativity, that different sanctions appear. When some people say that this model can explain everything from behaviour of atoms and molecules to gravitation forces in the universe, the reactions from the scientific establishment often become hostile in stead of giving gentle explanations showing where these people make false statements.
Why this website?
1) Years of teaching science
have led to the conclusion
that basic models in science textbooks may be a main reason for the
problems we experience in
communicating science in our science classes. Textbooks
of physics very often seem to avoid
answering natural and logical questions and instead they
present paradoxal explanations that seem
to undermine a physical understanding of nature. The result is
confusion. Students stop thinking and instead start to
memorize what authorities say.
2) Authorities, who control
different scientific publications and textbooks, have established a
sort of censorship which, in an effective way, stops this sort of
fundamental questions from reaching science classes. Internet, on the
other hand, is not controlled by orthodox scientists and it is
my hope that someone surfing on internet finds this site helpful and
will support a demand for more openness in science.
A
better scientific model?
As a human being, I understand
both the students who
find it easier to
memorize, and the orthodox scientists who find it uncomfortable when
someone tries to undermine what they think is fundamental. But if
there exists a better model for understanding nature, it is not a
good ting to hear about it? Science is about presenting and
evaluating theories and models and everyone involved in science
should be open-minded
enough to evaluate alternatives to their own favorite.
The response to presentations of the em-model this
far has been a sort of silent ignorance without giving any
scientific reasons for why this model do not deserve a fair
scientific evaluation.
About using the
same scientific criteria
It
may be a problem to get involved in a discussion
with people who are so predisposed that they never admit
facts that seem to be against their position. Some scientists may think that people that
propose alternatives to "established scientific models" are that sort
of people that do not deserve attention. An answer to this "argument of
silence" may be a declaration. I see no reason for arguing for the em-model if it can be
shown that this model includes fundamental problems like paradoxes,
or if it can be shown that
there is no way that it can explain fundamental properties in
nature. But
what we expect from one
side should also be expected from the other side! It is for example
hard to understand why some people who claim to be scientific, apparently
defend with all means, models which include
both paradoxes and fail
to explain many different
phenomena which we can observe in nature. A possible reason for
this may be that also our scientific establishment has
ceased thinking and
instead has chosen just
to accept what authorities have said. I hope that this is
false, and that it is possible to get a deeper discussion about
fundamental models in
science. I also hope to be spared from the statement
"science has shown" which is not a genuine
scientific statement if it is not followed by real scientific
evidence. As long as the em-model is not proven to be false,
it is not valid to say that we have to accept the common models
since there is no alternative.
16.12.03 Erling Skaar